Any debate on global warming now OVER!?

[jc456]

And that is different from oxygen isotopes how? Which is the accepted temperature record of the planet. So at what point do you say there's no evidence for glacial cycles? Because there's a shit ton corroborating evidence that supports the evidence you are dismissing for no good reason.

Well again, the point that ice froze is a single point in time. It is one number and not an average.

One site.

Limitations of ice cores in reconstructing temperature seasonality - Nature

www.nature.com

arising from: T. R. Jones et al. Nature Seasonal temperatures in West Antarctica during the Holocene - Nature (2023).

Resolving seasonal variations in long proxy records is an outstanding challenge in paleoclimate research. Jones et al.1 (referred to as J23) report on the continuous reconstruction of seasonal temperatures over the last 11,000 years from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice-core (WDC) record.

 

[yidnar]

Oooooops

A facial to all the climate crusaders....and have to say, after 15 years in this forum, I'm laughing.

"A funny thing happened as the WaPo tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the "disaster of global warming""

No global warming...not even close

MSM Journos Inadvertently Reveal Shocking Truth About Global Warming | ZeroHedge

Btw...note the source on the graph in the article

the Paleocene era [about 56 million yrs ago] is the warmest estimated period in Earth's history .. it was much warmer than it is today .. the climate changes .. on its own volition ..

 

[jc456]

Photos aren't going to record a 3 mm to 4 mm change per year. You are making the same argument EMH is making. Are you getting this from social media?

well son, if it was 3 mm to 4 mm a year over the course of two hundred years, that would show something.
4 mm per year for 200 years equals 31 inches of water rise. And son, there ain't nothing I've seen to show that. Like I already pointed out, I see none on photo's and now I added one on my previous post.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yup, the debate is over.
YOU LOST.
Skookerasbil Started the Wrongest thread EVER made here with his NINE Year running 'Skeptics are Winning' thread in 2013-2022.
Nailed it!
Astonishing!

View attachment 1016334



`

 

[ding]

Well again, the point that ice froze is a single point in time. It is one number and not an average.

One site.

Limitations of ice cores in reconstructing temperature seasonality - Nature

www.nature.com

arising from: T. R. Jones et al. Nature Seasonal temperatures in West Antarctica during the Holocene - Nature (2023).

Resolving seasonal variations in long proxy records is an outstanding challenge in paleoclimate research. Jones et al.1 (referred to as J23) report on the continuous reconstruction of seasonal temperatures over the last 11,000 years from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice-core (WDC) record.

Googling reasons to not use ice core data is not a good way to go if you are trying to discover truth. Especially since the data makes sense with all of the other independent evidence from the geologic record. Or do you not believe they have sea level data from evidence that is independent of ice core or oxygen isotopes from sea floor cores? Or you do not believe there is a correlation between temperature and sea level.

The reality is all of the data works together and all of the data shows an icehouse plant that began 3 million years ago and has been cycling between long glacial periods and short interglacial periods. That in fact validates ice core data.

 

[ding]

well son, if it was 3 mm to 4 mm a year over the course of two hundred years, that would show something.
4 mm per year for 200 years equals 31 inches of water rise. And son, there ain't nothing I've seen to show that. Like I already pointed out, I see none on photo's and now I added one on my previous post.

I can't believe you are making the same ridiculous argument that EMH is making. But call me son again and I'll show you the other side I held back the other day. Fair enough?

Maybe in your world a static sea level makes sense but anyone who has actually studied sea level data knows better. This is especially true for the past 3 million years.

 

[ding]

well son, if it was 3 mm to 4 mm a year over the course of two hundred years, that would show something.
4 mm per year for 200 years equals 31 inches of water rise. And son, there ain't nothing I've seen to show that. Like I already pointed out, I see none on photo's and now I added one on my previous post.

It's been 3 to 4 mm per year for the past 6,000 years. Why do you believe it magically stopped?

 

[ding]

Data on ancient sea level changes primarily comes from studying geological features like ancient shorelines (beach ridges, wave-cut terraces), coral reef terraces, and marine fossils found in sediment cores, which provide evidence of past sea levels at different points in time; these are considered "proxy" data as they indirectly indicate sea level changes based on their location and characteristics.

 

[jc456]

Googling reasons to not use ice core data is not a good way to go if you are trying to discover truth. Especially since the data makes sense with all of the other geologic records. Or do you not believe they have sea level data from evidence that is independent of ice core or oxygen isotope data from sea floor cores? Or you not believe there is no correlation between temperature and sea level.

Well, since we know that the land mass moves, the sea level has changed over time. We know that just off the coast of Puerto Rico. T

It's been 3 to 4 mm per year for the past 6,000 years. Why do you believe it magically stopped?

Do you ever bother to look up anything, or do you just gobble up whatever unskeptical science and the legion of concerned scientists tell you? Let me guess...you are a gobbler.


Here....Fort Norfolk circa 1935



Here...Fort Norfolk 2014




And we could go right down the coast, to key west and back up and follow the coast right around to Texas looking at historic photos and modern photos of the water front that show practically no difference. If your area is flooding at king tides, it is due to sinking land, not rising seas. Try a bit of critical thinking...it is a bit more work, but it beats the hell out of being a dupe.

 

[jc456]

Data on ancient sea level changes primarily comes from studying geological features like ancient shorelines (beach ridges, wave-cut terraces), coral reef terraces, and marine fossils found in sediment cores, which provide evidence of past sea levels at different points in time; these are considered "proxy" data as they indirectly indicate sea level changes based on their location and characteristics.

The fact is the continents move. That mere fact changes sea levels.

 

[EMH]

The fact is the continents move. That mere fact changes sea levels.

Somewhat accurate.

When continents move within 600 miles to the pole, and when they move outside of 600 miles to the pole, that's what controls sea levels.


Inside 600 miles to the pole = go into continent specific ICE AGE = GREENLAND AND ANTARCTICA TODAY = 97% of EArth ice = 9 million cubic miles of ice... (that's a lot of ice)

 

[ding]

Well, since we know that the land mass moves, the sea level has changed over time. We know that just off the coast of Puerto Rico. T

Seriously? You are going to base your belief on pictures?

Sea level hasn't changed the last 3 million years because of plate tectonics.

It changed because of northern hemisphere glaciation or deglaciation.

 

[ding]

The fact is the continents move. That mere fact changes sea levels.

How much do you believe the continents have moved in the last 3 million years?

 

[jc456]

Seriously? You are going to base your belief on pictures?

Sea level hasn't changed the last 3 million years because of plate tectonics.
View attachment 1064024



It changed because of northern hemisphere glaciation or deglaciation.
View attachment 1064025

Sure, pictures are used in court all the time

 

[ding]

Sure, pictures are used in court all the time

Sure of murder scenes. But not scientific analysis of sea level. This is as dumb as using hurricanes to measure temperature.

 

[ding]

Sure, pictures are used in court all the time

If you want to argue hurricanes measure temperature and pictures measure sea levels because you are against AGW, go right ahead but you are hurting the cause because those are ridiculous arguments that make us look bad. So I have to waste my time correcting your errors so we don't look bad.

 

[jc456]

If you want to argue hurricanes measure temperature and pictures measure sea levels because you are against AGW, go right ahead but you are hurting the cause because those are ridiculous arguments that make us look bad. So I have to waste my time correcting your errors so we don't look bad.

I’ve seen no evidence otherwise. Data uncontrolled is fudge!

 

[ding]

I’ve seen no evidence otherwise. Data uncontrolled is fudge!

You sound exactly like EMH.

 

[ding]

Sure, pictures are used in court all the time

Photos cannot be used to accurately measure sea level rise because they cannot account for fluctuations in tide levels, which can significantly alter the apparent waterline in a picture, making it difficult to distinguish actual sea level changes from natural tidal variations, even when comparing photos taken at the same location at different times; additionally, photos lack the precise data needed to measure sea level change, which is best obtained through dedicated instruments like tide gauges and satellite altimetry.

 

[jc456]

You sound exactly like EMH.

I sound like me