Poll: Cooling, Stable, Warming, AGW?

[ReinyDays]

Since the past 50 million years but especially so the past 3 million years when the planet transitioned to an icehouse planet from a greenhouse planet.

Well ... the Cryogenian period was mostly 665,000 years before present ... when cyanobacteria finally gave way to algae ... you kids today don't know what cold is ...

 

[ding]

Well ... the Cryogenian period was mostly 665,000 years before present ... when cyanobacteria finally gave way to algae ... you kids today don't know what cold is ...

I use to walk to school with cyanobacteria up to my knees. Uphill both ways.

 

[ReinyDays]

I use to walk through cyanobacteria up to my knees to school. Uphill both ways.

Rocks were heavier ...

 

[abu afak]

Since the past 50 million years but especially so the past 3 million years when the planet transitioned to an icehouse planet from a greenhouse planet.

IOW, exactly what I said.
You are NOT answering the issue at hand: The recent Industrial Era and "AGW" IS the Poll question.
Just so you would Not have to admit it IS warming.

No one is debating "50 Million years ago." (nor 3 mil)
There wouldn't be any poll on that! And no "AGW" choice.
LOL Fraud boy.
`

 

[ding]

Rocks were heavier ...

Dirt was dirtier.

 

[ding]

IIOWQ, wexabtly what I said.
You are NOt answering the issue at hand.
The recent Industral Era AGW THAT IS the

Nothing more than a climate fluctuation which the geologic record is littered with.

 

[Crick]

Nothing more than a climate fluctuation which the geologic record is littered with.

Do you agree that for the 5,000 years before 1850, global temperatures were slowly descending?

 

[ding]

Do you agree that for the 5,000 years before 1850, global temperatures were slowly descending?

Normal climate fluctuation. The geologic record is filthy with'em.

 

[abu afak]

Normal Climate Fluctuation. The geologic record is filthy with'em.

Doesn't look like "Normal Climate Fluctuation" to me! It's the AGW Spike.
We had 10,000 yrs of "Normal Fluctuation" previous though!
So you went even (Less Relevantly) beyond the 5000 years that Crick suggested.

Well known Marcott.
Which stops in 2000 or 2013, and since which the Temperature has set even new higher records, and Every Year Hotter than 2013.
(2016 and 2020 being highest)
and with temperature catching up but following/lagging CO2.
SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.
More representations showing the OBVIOUS available.
We were Cooling before we turned on the Industrial Revolution engines.

The bottom graph with 2000 yrs of Northern Hemisphere "Normal Fluctuation".... Before the AGW SPIKE.

`

 

[Crick]

because they need sheepeople like any science that's been politicized to exist Crick

~S~

So, those PhD's doing all the climate science. Can they do the math?

 

[Crick]

Normal climate fluctuation. The geologic record is filthy with'em.

And when did that slow cooling begin? IOW, how far back do you have to go before the Earth's temperatures are consistently rising? Here's a hint

Say, about 9500 years ago?

 

[ding]

Doesn't look like "Normal Climate Fluctuation" to me! It's the AGW Spike.
We had 10,000 yrs of "Normal Fluctuation" previous though!
So you went even (Less Relevantly) beyond the 5000 years that Crick suggested.

Well known Marcott.
Which stops in 2000 or 2013, and since which the Temperature has set even new higher records, and Every Year Hotter than 2013.
(2016 and 2020 being highest)
and with temperature catching up but following/lagging CO2.
SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.
More representations showing the OBVIOUS available.
We were Cooling before we turned on the Industrial Revolution engines.

The bottom graph with 2000 yrs of Northern Hemisphere "Normal Fluctuation".... Before the AGW SPIKE.

`

What that data shows is that most of the last 10,000 years has been as warm as today. Congratulations. You just proved natural climate variation.

 

[ding]

And when did that slow cooling begin? IOW, how far back do you have to go before the Earth's temperatures are consistently rising? Here's a hint

Say, about 9500 years ago?

It's no different than any other saw tooth on this graph, dummy.

 

[sparky]

o, those PhD's doing all the climate science. Can they do the math?

they do what they're PAID to do Crick ~S~

 

[ding]

CO2 hasn't caused shit. The present temperature is still on the trend despite increased CO2.

 

[Anomalism]

Many others will not vote to avoid losing their conservative/high-fiving appearance

You must be talking about Flacaltenn. Smart enough to know the truth but not honest enough to say it.

 

[ReinyDays]

One more graph and I'll fucking SCREAM ...

 

[abu afak]

You must be talking about Flacaltenn. Smart enough to know the truth but not honest enough to say it.

I'm talking about him but more about one-line/quip/? Toddster, SunsetTommy, and even one-line-Ding who knows the truth.
They have a bit of Sociopathic rooting to be on the Right/Conservative side on issues.
Sorry to say they can't be honest with themselves either.
Ding, a bit crazy, wants to fantasize on everything/a determined nonconformist/godist

Toddster is fairly smart but he just harrasses me and Crick with tiny detail while ignoring completely idiotic posts from Deniers and just plain idiots like jc456 who give him likes.
They don't want to be in assailable positions/on the record. (to stay conservative, or have no justifications for those positions an they know it)
Stalker Toddster has no doubt seen this, but also does Not want to vote, or vote and explain why. He'd lose his conservative credentials/fan club/trolling life.

That's why there are Virtually No thread starts for any of them except Tommy's WUWT wacks.

I didn't expect any to vote in this thread.
Ding did but Dishonestly (more sociopathically) changed the time scale so he could be in the 'cooling' camp.
He has no game except the lie "normal interglacial" as I said before.
And he just did it AGAIN!
[After LOL, 50 million yrs] He just put up a 400,000 year graph to try and refute a 150 yr AGW... that could Not even be seen on his 6" wide 400K years that makes the longer more gradual periods look as sharp as AGW actually is on a 2,000 ot 10,000 year graph. a 2500:1 compression 150 yr time scale, or 40x the 10,000, year graph that would be/IS more enlightening appropriate that I posted.

Tommy put me on [Faux] Ignore long ago when I kept asking him to lay out his position on warming (or not) 5 or 6 times.
He can't do it! Ask him.
What he does do is put up denier articles and graphs but can never debate. Just say "refute the article or you lose." He is a moderator on Denier blog WUWT. Plenty of crap articles.

The Env section/USMB is overwhelmingly denier but I guess (beyond calling AGW BS/catastrophist) many don't want to go ON the record as they rightly suspect they are Wrong and/or can't justify it. Just bash-and-run like Crazy 'sparky' on page 1.

more later/or another time.
thx
`

 

[Crick]

they do what they're PAID to do Crick ~S~

All of them? Out of the thousands of scientists doing climate research, not one is honest enough to tell the truth? If scientists were this dishonest, why wouldn't we have seen this sort of behavior before?

 

[sparky]

All of them? Out of the thousands of scientists doing climate research, not one is honest enough to tell the truth? If scientists were this dishonest, why wouldn't we have seen this sort of behavior before?

where were you during the last pandemic Crick? ~S~