The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[ding]

You are an idiot. It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years. It only matters where you set the endpoints. And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope. 20% or 30% maybe. Not a 10x difference.

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

 

[Cosmos]

You are an idiot. It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years. It only matters where you set the endpoints. And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope. 20% or 30% maybe. Not a 10x difference.

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW. Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods. When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly? A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.

 

[ding]

You are an idiot. It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years. It only matters where you set the endpoints. And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope. 20% or 30% maybe. Not a 10x difference.

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW. Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods. When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly? A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.

No, that was not you acknowledging that. That was you dismissing the fact that we are still within the normal range of temperature increases during an interglacial cycle.

I have explained the anomaly. The data does not exist to make a comparison. We have no idea of how the slope changed over a 12,000 year period or how many times it changed. We can be damn certain it was not constant.

 

[Cosmos]

You are an idiot. It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years. It only matters where you set the endpoints. And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope. 20% or 30% maybe. Not a 10x difference.

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW. Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods. When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly? A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.

No, that was not you acknowledging that. That was you dismissing the fact that we are still within the normal range of temperature increases during an interglacial cycle.

I have explained the anomaly. The data does not exist to make a comparison. We have no idea of how the slope changed over a 12,000 year period or how many times it changed. We can be damn certain it was not constant.

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

 

[ding]

You are an idiot. It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years. It only matters where you set the endpoints. And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope. 20% or 30% maybe. Not a 10x difference.

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW. Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods. When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly? A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.

No, that was not you acknowledging that. That was you dismissing the fact that we are still within the normal range of temperature increases during an interglacial cycle.

I have explained the anomaly. The data does not exist to make a comparison. We have no idea of how the slope changed over a 12,000 year period or how many times it changed. We can be damn certain it was not constant.

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

There is no anomaly because you can't calculate the slope during the discrete periods within a 12,000 year period because the data does not exist to do so. You are swinging at windmills because the scientific data does not agree with your alarmist mentality.

 

[ding]

You are an idiot. It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years. It only matters where you set the endpoints. And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope. 20% or 30% maybe. Not a 10x difference.

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW. Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods. When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly? A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.

No, that was not you acknowledging that. That was you dismissing the fact that we are still within the normal range of temperature increases during an interglacial cycle.

I have explained the anomaly. The data does not exist to make a comparison. We have no idea of how the slope changed over a 12,000 year period or how many times it changed. We can be damn certain it was not constant.

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

You nutjobs are so single mindedly focused on CO2 that you ignore the bigger picture. I can point out a half of dozen instances in the geologic record where your religious dogma has been proven to be false. CO2 does not drive climate change which is why the predictions of your high priest continue to fail to materialize. Yes, CO2 has a greenhouse gas effect but the logarithmic relationship means that it's impact diminishes as CO2 levels increase. The ridiculous feedbacks they have manufactured to instill hysteria in people like yourself do not exist.

 

[Cosmos]

You are an idiot. It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years. It only matters where you set the endpoints. And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope. 20% or 30% maybe. Not a 10x difference.

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW. Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods. When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly? A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.

No, that was not you acknowledging that. That was you dismissing the fact that we are still within the normal range of temperature increases during an interglacial cycle.

I have explained the anomaly. The data does not exist to make a comparison. We have no idea of how the slope changed over a 12,000 year period or how many times it changed. We can be damn certain it was not constant.

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

There is no anomaly because you can't calculate the slope during the discrete periods within a 12,000 year period because the data does not exist to do so. You are swinging at windmills because the scientific data does not agree with your alarmist mentality.

Seriously? Was this too difficult for you?

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

I've been trying to keep an open mind on this question for years, so that makes me a nutjob?

 

[ding]

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW. Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods. When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly? A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.

No, that was not you acknowledging that. That was you dismissing the fact that we are still within the normal range of temperature increases during an interglacial cycle.

I have explained the anomaly. The data does not exist to make a comparison. We have no idea of how the slope changed over a 12,000 year period or how many times it changed. We can be damn certain it was not constant.

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

There is no anomaly because you can't calculate the slope during the discrete periods within a 12,000 year period because the data does not exist to do so. You are swinging at windmills because the scientific data does not agree with your alarmist mentality.

Seriously? Was this too difficult for you?

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

I've been trying to keep an open mind on this question for years, so that makes me a nutjob?

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture. You are a nut job because you look at this data and ignore the significance of it and instead focus on a comparison that cannot be made because insufficient data exists to do so and are unable to comprehend why it can't be made even though it has been explained to you in detail.

 

[ding]

No. Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods. In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events. The slopes could have been anything in between. No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points. In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today. At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW. Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods. When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly? A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.

No, that was not you acknowledging that. That was you dismissing the fact that we are still within the normal range of temperature increases during an interglacial cycle.

I have explained the anomaly. The data does not exist to make a comparison. We have no idea of how the slope changed over a 12,000 year period or how many times it changed. We can be damn certain it was not constant.

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

There is no anomaly because you can't calculate the slope during the discrete periods within a 12,000 year period because the data does not exist to do so. You are swinging at windmills because the scientific data does not agree with your alarmist mentality.

Seriously? Was this too difficult for you?

Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?

I've been trying to keep an open mind on this question for years, so that makes me a nutjob?

Can you tell me why it took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the predicted temperature from radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

 

[Cosmos]

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for concerning a chart that you posted, btw.

 

[ding]

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

 

[Cosmos]

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

 

[SSDD]

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like and answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

You keep claiming that the degree of warming that we have seen in the past 200 years is 10X the rate of previous warming periods...In order to credibly make such a claim, you need to actually know what the rate of increase was for all the warming periods prior to the one that began 200 years ago...can you provide the proxy study, or studies that allows you to make such a claim? What proxy study or studies exist that have a resolution of 200 years..other than ice cores which certainly don't show the present warming to be any more rapid than previous warming periods.

 

[ding]

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

 

[IanC]

much of the problem with using multiproxy reconstructions is that they keep adding modern instrumental data to the end. comparing similar proxies is reasonably valid as long as the selection process is not an exercise in cherrypicking. comparing low sensitivity, low precision proxies to high sensitivity, high precision modern instrumental data is not valid.

remember, 'hide the decline' was about the effort to remove the inconvenient data present in the proxy data and replace it with instrumental data. conclusions made from only proxy data would have been dramatically different.

 

[Cosmos]

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

 

[SSDD]

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

You keep claiming that the degree of warming that we have seen in the past 200 years is 10X the rate of previous warming periods...In order to credibly make such a claim, you need to actually know what the rate of increase was for all the warming periods prior to the one that began 200 years ago...can you provide the proxy study, or studies that allows you to make such a claim? What proxy study or studies exist that have a resolution of 200 years..other than ice cores which certainly don't show the present warming to be any more rapid than previous warming periods.

Can you actually point to, or bring a proxy study here that supports the claim, or is the claim just something you pulled out of your ass or heard from some other warmer?

 

[Cosmos]

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

You keep claiming that the degree of warming that we have seen in the past 200 years is 10X the rate of previous warming periods...In order to credibly make such a claim, you need to actually know what the rate of increase was for all the warming periods prior to the one that began 200 years ago...can you provide the proxy study, or studies that allows you to make such a claim? What proxy study or studies exist that have a resolution of 200 years..other than ice cores which certainly don't show the present warming to be any more rapid than previous warming periods.

Can you actually point to, or bring a proxy study here that supports the claim, or is the claim just something you pulled out of your ass or heard from some other warmer?

Moron. I've linked to it and referred to it numerous times on this thread.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

"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"

 

[ding]

No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

 

[Cosmos]

Did I even mention CO2 here? No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for.

Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?

I just want the right answer, numbnuts. And you don't have it. You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200. You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones. I'd like an answer for what's causing that. So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community. You can't seem to offer any other explanation.

I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.

But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.

It's not. Show me the data that says it is. Not an opinion. The data.

Show me the data that says it's not. I got this information from the very study you posted on here. You should already know what I'm talking about. Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?