New NATURE paper uses 'hide the incline'

Translation: we didn't like that the Vostok ice cores showing CO2 as a laggard and not leading the warming so we're changing the data sets to ones that fit our preconceived notions

hahaha, that is it, exactly.
Teeheehee, if you queers have to translate everything to Log Cabin-downlow, please reference to the Log Cabin dicktionary and the gays-on-ice website, with links, since you cherry-picked a frozen turd, of irrelevant, queer data, which will not save you, from the implications of Fathead's graph, which went straight, to 400 ppm.

Remember that? Oh, that! Shove your ice up your assholes, put your heads back up in there, ride a rocket to Russia, and lick shitty snow-cones, all the way home.

You can't prove a lag, from one set of cores, from one location, you busy, wingpunk queers. What is best proven by today's posts is CO2 drives warming, CO2 is more closely related to warming in recent times, and warming is due to follow CO2, upward. And that is without the methane, which is coming along, see AMEG.me. Go get it.
 
flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4534-400000yearslarge1.gif


On that scale, the most surprising behaviour is NOT the "which comes first" proposition which I've weakly seen sometimes on other timescales. But more consistently -- it's the "which goes last" proposition that seems to suggest some darn thing. On almost every major FALL in temp -- the temp precedes the "supposed" forcing function. Kinda violates the concept of a forcing function on that principle alone doesn't it?

Either the lags in the proxies are wrong and some axis diddling is required or the current CO2 theory would have to say that the feedbacks somehow go mostly negative at some point in the CO2 rise..

<edited for a 3rd possibility> OR the CO2 ice proxies are somehow "filtered" themselves to add delay. Perhaps liquid mixing? Or limits on the dating resolution when the cores are taken.

Forcing functions should predict BOTH the positive AND negative slopes of temperature.. Eh?

So -- back to the graph.. If CO2 DRIVES the temperature... How come almost all the major temperature DECLINES in that graph start BEFORE the CO2 level starts to drop???

Curiousity like that just might hold the key to understanding HOW (and if) we could do anything to LOWER the surface temperature.. If the temperature can drop during a relatively high concentration of CO2 -- we need to explain that -- don't we?

Fathead got some 'splainin' to do! :cuckoo:

Fatski, this graph isn't in your native Russian, or something. In plain English-US, the red line starts up, the blue line follows, on all major upswings. :confused:

The red line starts down, the blue line follows, on all major downswings. :mad:

But we aren't seeing exactly that, at the end of the graph, do we, fat as fuck dildina, when the plot ends at present. :eek:

What we see is a radical shoot, over about 150 years, to 400 ppm CO2, which is best explained, by simultaneous human defoliation and CO2 emissions. Do you want to offer any more chickenshit, bullshit, wingpunk circle-jerks, spam-pictures, gay porn, or any other diversion media, which would explain why you think warming is not going to follow the dramatic rise, of the shooting, red line? Repetitious, ain't it, Fathead. Move to Russia, next, sell us some oil, and call yourself 'Flacaltennbuttski.' :eusa_boohoo:

Gay as hell Crapforbrains hasn't caught on, to 'liar, liar, pants on fire.' Yeah, Crapforbrains, I know the red line is for CO2, the blue line is temperature. And your head is for up your own asshole, since Fathead is finally figuring out he pitard-hoisted you and his stupid self, with a graph which clearly shows not only global warming correlates to rise in CO2, but AGW is strongly indicated, by the way the red line jumps, at the end of the plot. :redface:

Got the picture? With your heads up each others' assholes, one of you farted, and you both blew up! Dumbshits! :Boom2: :eek: :confused:

It certainly shouldn't be a surprise that a brain-adled, sociopathic pothead would miss the whole point here. And NEVER would I expect you to get the nuances I was alluding to about causation --

but MAYBE it's crossed your damage mind that we are looking at 450,000yrs of HISTORY here. You should be seeing swings of 100ppm of CO2 and WILD swings of almost 10degC in temperature --- ALL WITHOUT the help or evil-doing of man... And I'm not stupid enough to contradict IanC when he says that CO2 is an indicator of climate. We're NOT that contrary. Not even arguing (much) about the warming trend.

The question on the table here is not whether the globe is coming out of a recent and warming -- But if MAN-MADE EMISSIONS of CO2 is the CAUSE.. Tell me WHO caused those wild fluctations we're looking at in the pretty red/blue graphy thingy.. Did large lizards cause it? Were the sabretooths driving SUVs?

Not asking you difficult questions here... Please sober up and TRY to respond.
 
IanC::

I had a chance to read the OP link tonight.. It's THIS graph (the 450,000 yr record) that caught my attention..

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4534-400000yearslarge1.gif


Forcing functions should predict BOTH the positive AND negative slopes of temperature.. Eh?

So if IanCrapforbrains or any other wingpunk puts up any more lies or spam, kindly refer to page 2, this thread, quote Fathead's graph, and explain to the CRS-sufferer, how the red line is CO2, the blue line is temperature, and the last 5000 years are represented by a warming trend, which follows rise in CO2 levels, since the last trough, which is like all the other troughs, the red line starts to rise, and the blue line follows, passing the red line, until the red line rises all the way to 400 ppm CO2, all of a sudden, to present!

See how easy that is, like in NOLA?
 
<Pinhead Pothead>

Fatski, this graph isn't in your native Russian, or something. In plain English-US, the red line starts up, the blue line follows, on all major upswings.

The red line starts down, the blue line follows, on all major downswings.

No it don't -- more often than not on the major downswings. Could be a scaling issue, but I doubt that. Look at the plateau of CO2 at about 120,000 yrs. The temp goes DOWN by 4 degC before the CO2 even starts to decline. (e.g.)
IT's clear even on this very long time scale.

When you get past that misconception, we can move on..
 
Last edited:
It certainly shouldn't be a surprise that a brain-adled, sociopathic pothead would miss the whole point here. And NEVER would I expect you to get the nuances I was alluding to about causation --

Who is a pothead, you brainless but haughty queer? Now that you raise it, what is your point? My point is the graph shows clear leading correlations, between both rising and falling levels, of CO2, relative to warming, which follows the CO2, in an unbroken trend, for 450,000 (count 'em, bitch) years. What causes your intriguing blocks is you are deeply demented, and what causes your usual incoherence is you seek to rant, from inside a Log Cabin closet, with a shifting agenda, which sometimes includes bullshitting about your past, which included jobs, only if you were hired as a tea-room extra, by other, bullshitting queers.

but MAYBE it's crossed your damage mind that we are looking at 450,000yrs of HISTORY here. You should be seeing swings of 100ppm of CO2 and WILD swings of almost 10degC in temperature --- ALL WITHOUT the help or evil-doing of man... And I'm not stupid enough to contradict IanC when he says that CO2 is an indicator of climate. We're NOT that contrary. Not even arguing (much) about the warming trend.

DDD! Maybe it's crossed "your damage(sic) mind," the trends at the peaks and troughs are 100% consistent. Maybe it's crossed your bad brain, you should have sucked off a gay statistician, to get some help, for your socked-in self, so you could read the trends, which are perfectly consistent, in the graph you posted. Hey, like that last trend, of CO2 shoot? The warming won't end its trend, to rise, until the CO2 lowers and forces the peak, to recede.

The question on the table here is not whether the globe is coming out of a recent and warming -- But if MAN-MADE EMISSIONS of CO2 is the CAUSE.. Tell me WHO caused those wild fluctations we're looking at in the pretty red/blue graphy thingy.. Did large lizards cause it? Were the sabretooths driving SUVs?

"The question on the table . . ." You useless piece of gay shit! This graph shows CO2, without methane or acidification, but it shows warming, in a way, which clearly identifies the time, when humans were most active, at industry, deforestation, and general defoliation, as the time, when CO2 drastically increased, out of the usual order, of a decrease, to lower the usual peak area, of the 450,000-year-trend. But the CO2 didn't do its usual drop, did it, Fathead bitch!

Did your boyfriend cause any of this? Is he a pink lizard? Were big, bitey pussycats in your asshole, kissing? Did you drive everybody to ballet, in your Caddy? Eat shiiiit, bitch!

Not asking you difficult questions here... Please sober up and TRY to respond.
I can tell you are queer, from the way you went after Trakar, but now you can't get enough of me, so put me on ignore, queer as queer can be. If you can let go of your wiener . . .

That's why I like to do USMB, since I can out you, from several states away. You are the bitch, with the Jack Daniels-spelling errors, queenie. :Boom2: :confused:
 
Last edited:
Pothead..

Hey, like that last trend, of CO2 shoot? The warming won't end its trend, to rise, until the CO2 lowers and forces the peak, to recede.
It shouldn't but there are at least 5 times in that MAN-LESS history where EXACTLY that happens. Have you found Waldo yet?? Look at about 120,000 yrs. Clue -- it's just left of 100,000...
 
Pothead..

Hey, like that last trend, of CO2 shoot? The warming won't end its trend, to rise, until the CO2 lowers and forces the peak, to recede.
It shouldn't but there are at least 5 times in that MAN-LESS history where EXACTLY that happens. Have you found Waldo yet?? Look at about 120,000 yrs. Clue -- it's just left of 100,000...
Yeah, I'm writing messages, addressed to a Mr.Waldo. Gee, there are about 5 peaks, and they all show the warming ends, after the CO2 peaks and then declines. Is that what you want to review, you ridiculous, gay pecker?

The warming peak, at 120,000 years ago goes way past the CO2 plot, and then it starts down, only after CO2 peaks at 280 ppm, then CO2 heads downward, before cooling catches up, on the decline. Your point is what, gayer than average Waldo? That trend is unbroken. There is only one major trend, which varies.

Did you notice, hmmm, unlike the other peaks, the present CO2 doesn't go back down! Gosh no, it boogie-fevers all the way up to 400 ppm, or isn't that information gay enough for you? The trend seems broken, right when humans were busy, and you were gay!

So let's see if you know how to blow off your wingpunks, put your little, snotty head between your legs, and kiss your gay ass, goodbye! If your wingpunks hang around with you, after today, you are all gay as Christmas and Fire Island, both. Read your graph, ass.
 
Last edited:
Pothead..

Hey, like that last trend, of CO2 shoot? The warming won't end its trend, to rise, until the CO2 lowers and forces the peak, to recede.
It shouldn't but there are at least 5 times in that MAN-LESS history where EXACTLY that happens. Have you found Waldo yet?? Look at about 120,000 yrs. Clue -- it's just left of 100,000...
Point?

What do YOU think the significance of that is OopyDoo? The fact that one can spot MANY places in the 450,000 year record where Temp DROPS PRECEDE any significant downward move in CO2?

I've been played too hard here without getting ANYTHING in return except filth and foul language and NOW feigned ignorance...

I'm not THAT stupid to play along.. I could be earning money..
:eusa_whistle:
 
The warming peak, at 120,000 years ago goes way past the CO2 plot, and then it starts down, only after CO2 peaks at 280 ppm, then CO2 heads downward, before cooling catches up, on the decline. Your point is what, gayer than average Waldo? That trend is unbroken. There is only one major trend, which varies.

Wrong again.. THere's about a 4degC crash of the temperature before the CO2 conc. even starts to change.

And this Statement is why I'd LIKE to put you on ignore -- but you're still amusing..

There is only one major trend, which varies.

That one just MIGHT go into my footer...
 
This is not the time in US history to discuss arcane theories about which came first the chicken or the egg. Solar panels don't work, windmills are a joke and American affluence is not the cause of droughts in Africa.
 
If you don't like the one at 120,000 yr -- let's do the 3degC mini-dip at 260,000 yrs. CLEARLY the CO2 didn't drive the sudden drop in temps.

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4534-400000yearslarge1.gif



And you didn't answer my question about the NON-MAN-made source of all this historical CO2 chaos.
Was it all forest fires and volcanoes? Are you SURE? Or is there some doubt how all those spikey temperature events happened without AGW?
 
This is not the time in US history to discuss arcane theories about which came first the chicken or the egg. Solar panels don't work, windmills are a joke and American affluence is not the cause of droughts in Africa.

Thanks for the intervention. I really mean it. We SHOULD be fixing all the other eco-naut misconceptions that DO have a bearing on our immediate lives..
:cool:
 
Translation: we didn't like that the Vostok ice cores showing CO2 as a laggard and not leading the warming so we're changing the data sets to ones that fit our preconceived notions

hahaha, that is it, exactly.
Teeheehee, if you queers have to translate everything to Log Cabin-downlow, please reference to the Log Cabin dicktionary and the gays-on-ice website, with links, since you cherry-picked a frozen turd, of irrelevant, queer data, which will not save you, from the implications of Fathead's graph, which went straight, to 400 ppm.

Remember that? Oh, that! Shove your ice up your assholes, put your heads back up in there, ride a rocket to Russia, and lick shitty snow-cones, all the way home.

You can't prove a lag, from one set of cores, from one location, you busy, wingpunk queers. What is best proven by today's posts is CO2 drives warming, CO2 is more closely related to warming in recent times, and warming is due to follow CO2, upward. And that is without the methane, which is coming along, see AMEG.me. Go get it.

You're not just some normal gay guy either, you're really quite flaming
 
If you don't like the one at 120,000 yr -- let's do the 3degC mini-dip at 260,000 yrs. CLEARLY the CO2 didn't drive the sudden drop in temps.

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4534-400000yearslarge1.gif


And you didn't answer my question about the NON-MAN-made source of all this historical CO2 chaos. Was it all forest fires and volcanoes? Are you SURE? Or is there some doubt how all those spikey temperature events happened without AGW?

The main trough about 265,000 years ago headed up, when CO2 levels climbed. The mini-spike 260,000 years ago stopped short of a climb, when CO2 acceleration dipped, you shit. A few thousand years later, CO2 went back up, and so did temperature, for the usual 10 C swing. The swings are now headed, for at least a massive 15-20 C rise, in temperature.

Do I have do go over how Trakar thinks you are not even a smart undergrad? I graduated from college, I am sure Trakar has an advanced degree, and I guess Old Rocks is a geologist or something. Your disrespect for them and your perverse affinity for queers like yourself indicates you are a social inversionist and a punk-ass who has to be led through his own graph! You asshole, bitch, waldo-punk. Your claims to science are fraudulent. Who would pay you, and not find you out? Good work, getting the graph to load.

I've met frauds, before, Fatasshole. See that signature? You'd get kicked out of every house I've ever been in, living, working, whatever. No kleptos, bitch!

Why don't you wait until Trakar or O.R. are interested, in answering your now-tiresome questions? I don't give a shit about what caused all the fluctuations since 450,000 years ago, this evening. You have been stupid, all day long, and now, if humans didn't do it, I don't give a shit. Maybe I will want to hit search, tomorrow, for stupids who can't read your graph, including you.

Men aren't even interesting, until 10,000 years ago, and they aren't really interesting, until the start of the 19th Century. Then men do industry and defoliation, to shoot CO2 way up there. Or is that still difficult, for your sub-average mind, to comprehend? Your emptyhead Crosstard Bitch didn't put the graph up, again. What's wrong, Crosstard? Don't you like to play, or are your panties all bunchy-wunchy?
 
Last edited:
LOL..........

Circa January 2012...........Thames River...........frozen over for first time in like 70 years..............



article-2100136-11B28B0C000005DC-349_964x640.jpg



Im sure they were sitting at home this winter shitting their pants about global warming!!!!
 
hahaha, that is it, exactly.
Teeheehee, if you queers have to translate everything to Log Cabin-downlow, please reference to the Log Cabin dicktionary and the gays-on-ice website, with links, since you cherry-picked a frozen turd, of irrelevant, queer data, which will not save you, from the implications of Fathead's graph, which went straight, to 400 ppm.

Remember that? Oh, that! Shove your ice up your assholes, put your heads back up in there, ride a rocket to Russia, and lick shitty snow-cones, all the way home.

You can't prove a lag, from one set of cores, from one location, you busy, wingpunk queers. What is best proven by today's posts is CO2 drives warming, CO2 is more closely related to warming in recent times, and warming is due to follow CO2, upward. And that is without the methane, which is coming along, see AMEG.me. Go get it.

You're not just some normal gay guy either, you're really quite flaming




Be careful there Frank..........you even mention the word gay around this guy and its the total mental meltdown.

With a name like "g-note"......what instrument do you reckon he plays?


I got a hunch Frank.................:gay: Im figuring the brass family of instruments!!!:eusa_think:
 

Forum List

Back
Top