2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[westwall]

I never made that argument, sorry.

We already know that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes more Co2 to be in the atmosphere.

A physicist huh. You claim that the rise in CO2 is the proximal cause of the increase in temperature. You show cute graphs to support that contention.

The "cute" graph, as you call it, at issue is this one:

I never claimed this data lone supports the conclusion that Co2 is the cause of the recent temperature increase. I have claimed that this graph represents conclusive evidence that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 levels is caused mostly by man. Do you disagree?

That's because in the past Co2 increases have been caused by warmer temperatures brought about because of Milankovitch cycles and possibly other factors,

I fail to see your point.

We are currently living within one of those windows. It has been 800 years since the last major warming period. We are solidly at the upper time limit for CO2 increases based on that cause.

Yes, but we have data which conclusively indicates the current rapid rise in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man. Its in the graph above. Its very simple. All of a sudden, in less than 200 years, man put about 1200 gigatons into the atmosphere. In the same period, atmospheric Co2 has risen 800 gigatons.

The conclusion that that 800 gigaton increase would still be there even if man had not added 1200 gigatons - which appears to be what you are saying - is not supported by logic or common sense. Your contention that a warming peak several hundred years ago could somehow cause the sudden, rapid rise of Co2 levels as seen in the above graph - instead of the sudden, rapid rise of man producing more than enough Co2 to account for the increase - is frankly, absurd, and it tells us just how much of a mental retard you are.

There you go. Correlation that doesn't involve man at all. See how science is done? Now go test both hypotheses and become famous.

I see how you do science, yes. Which is horrible. It involves completely ignoring data which does not lead to the conclusion you want. You say that correlation does not equal causation yet you haven't even speculated at the causal link between a warming episode hundreds of years ago and the rapid rise of Co2 now - you ASSUME one exists because of correlation.

Absurd to you. However that is EXACTLY what the Vostock ice cores show us. Hundreds of years of nothing and then a sudden spike of CO2 hundreds of years after the warming.

 

[code1211]

Uhhh, I dunno,. what do most people say? Can I read abiout this on someone's blog?



A lot of people say there is abundant evidence of this, yes, you are right. Lots of folks say there is zero evidence of AGW. That feels right to me, lets go with it. Fuck al hockey stick gore and his SUV and methane farts, fucking hypocrite.




THAT graph does. I've never seen it. But I'm sure you're right. I"ve heard lots of other people - some of whom have their own blogs - talk about graphs a lot, like you do, and they've come to basically the same conclusions.




I'm sorry, I didn't mean to disagree with you. It was really all a joke. You've clearly got all the evidence on your side. So many people - some of who have blogs - agree with you and they talk about evidence a lot, as well, so we know they must have lots of it - why talk about it so much otherwise !!!

Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.

I'm sorry. It was my understanding that you are asserting that the rise in CO2 is what is causing the warming.

Have I misunderstood what you are saying?

 

[code1211]

LOLOLOL......oh, code4stupid, your silly logic is soooo retarded and you must pull your backward "facts(?)" out of your ass. I thought all of you denier cultists were obsessed with the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. You say warming started "in about 1575" but that is actually about the start of the Little Ice Age. You say it got going "by about 1650" but that is the coldest middle part of the Little Ice Age. Even the temperature chart you linked to shows that. Here's another one that might make it clearer to you.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was caused by some combination of natural factors (discussed below) and affected some parts of the world more than others. After the mid 1800's the temperature patterns were returning to the normal range the world had mostly been in for the previous six thousand years. Some scientists think that mankind's activities, like deforestation, had already been affecting the climate for centuries but in the 1800's we began to really pump long sequestered fossil CO2 into the atmosphere at ever higher rates and began the abrupt and accelerating global warming trend that has been observed since.

Little Ice Age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[6]

Causes

Solar activity

There is still a very poor understanding of the correlation between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures.[58][59] During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.[60] Other indicators of low solar activity during this period are levels of the isotopes carbon-14 and beryllium-10.[61]


Volcanic activity

Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity.[62] When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe. Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Huaynaputina (1600).[15]


Ocean Conveyor slowdown

Another possibility is that there was a slowing of thermohaline circulation.[24][63][64] The circulation could have been interrupted by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic, possibly caused by a period of warming before the Little Ice Age known as the Medieval Warm Period.[65][66][67] There is some concern that a shutdown of thermohaline circulation could happen again as a result of the present warming period.[68][69]


Decreased human populations

Some researchers have proposed that human influences on climate began earlier than is normally supposed and that major population declines in Eurasia and the Americas reduced this impact, leading to a cooling trend. William Ruddiman has proposed that somewhat reduced populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during and after the Black Death caused a decrease in agricultural activity. He suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesizes that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the early 16th century could have had a similar effect.[70][71] A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.[72] Faust, Gnecco, Mannstein and Stamm (2005) supported depopulation in the Americas as a factor, asserting that humans had cleared considerable amounts of forests to support agriculture in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans brought on a population collapse.[73] The authors link the subsequent depopulation to a drop in carbon dioxide levels observed at Law Dome, Antarctica.[73]

So explain why the warming pre dates the industrial revolution.

That's easy. It doesn't.

"NASA defines the term [Little Ice Age] as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming."

Industrial Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The First Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[8] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[9]

All we have to work with are the proxies. If you are going to assert something that is not supported by the data at hand, then please present other data that supports your assertion. The warming after the coldest part of the LIA starts before 1600.

While the cooler temperatures persisted, the warming had begun centuries before the increase of CO2.

You have been challenged to explain why the initial warming occurred absent increased CO2 and to explain why, if that cause was sufficient to stop cooling of the LIA, why that cause is not sufficient to continue the warming which seems to have continued until shortly before our current decade.

Your case depends on CO2 being, if not the only then certainly, the prime mover in climate change and it seems that the climate changes just fine without it.

Prove your case.

 

[code1211]

Uhhh, I dunno,. what do most people say? Can I read abiout this on someone's blog?



A lot of people say there is abundant evidence of this, yes, you are right. Lots of folks say there is zero evidence of AGW. That feels right to me, lets go with it. Fuck al hockey stick gore and his SUV and methane farts, fucking hypocrite.




THAT graph does. I've never seen it. But I'm sure you're right. I"ve heard lots of other people - some of whom have their own blogs - talk about graphs a lot, like you do, and they've come to basically the same conclusions.




I'm sorry, I didn't mean to disagree with you. It was really all a joke. You've clearly got all the evidence on your side. So many people - some of who have blogs - agree with you and they talk about evidence a lot, as well, so we know they must have lots of it - why talk about it so much otherwise !!!

Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.

If CO2 is the cause of the warming and the warming started 200 years before the increase in CO2, then you are arguing that a cause in 1800 had an effect in 1600.

Was the blithering idiot writing or reading?

 

[RollingThunder]

So explain why the warming pre dates the industrial revolution.

That's easy. It doesn't.

"NASA defines the term [Little Ice Age] as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming."

Industrial Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The First Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[8] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[9]

All we have to work with are the proxies. If you are going to assert something that is not supported by the data at hand, then please present other data that supports your assertion. The warming after the coldest part of the LIA starts before 1600.

Woooooeee....hold the presses....big news flash.....NASA scientists, along with the rest of them, identify the Little Ice Age as happening from 1550 to 1850 but code4stupid says different so we've got to change the textbooks....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....

While the cooler temperatures persisted, the warming had begun centuries before the increase of CO2.

It warmed a little and then it cooled a little. That does not establish a trend, nitwit.

"NASA defines the term [Little Ice Age] as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming."

You have been challenged to explain why the initial warming occurred absent increased CO2 and to explain why, if that cause was sufficient to stop cooling of the LIA, why that cause is not sufficient to continue the warming which seems to have continued until shortly before our current decade.

Your case depends on CO2 being, if not the only then certainly, the prime mover in climate change and it seems that the climate changes just fine without it.

Prove your case.

You seem to want to ignore the question of what caused the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The material I posted discussed the possible natural causes, such as the period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity that put a lot of dust and other particles in the upper atmosphere. As these natural factors changed, the affected portions of the world began to get warmer again naturally but all of that was within the bounds of normal variation. Since 1850, the Earth has started on an trend of rapidly rising temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal variation and is scientifically linked to the rising CO2 levels mankind has created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

One of your denier cult straw-man arguments is that scientists assert that CO2 is the only mover in climate change but that is just ignorant stupidity on your part. Climate scientists are well aware that there are a number of natural factors that influence the Earth's climate patterns. They have found though that none of these natural factors can be responsible for the current abrupt warming trend and that the increased CO2 levels are the main factor driving the current warming and climate changes.

 

[skookerasbil]

That's easy. It doesn't.

"NASA defines the term [Little Ice Age] as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming."

Industrial Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The First Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[8] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[9]

All we have to work with are the proxies. If you are going to assert something that is not supported by the data at hand, then please present other data that supports your assertion. The warming after the coldest part of the LIA starts before 1600.

Woooooeee....hold the presses....big news flash.....NASA scientists, along with the rest of them, identify the Little Ice Age as happening from 1550 to 1850 but code4stupid says different so we've got to change the textbooks....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....

While the cooler temperatures persisted, the warming had begun centuries before the increase of CO2.

It warmed a little and then it cooled a little. That does not establish a trend, nitwit.

"NASA defines the term [Little Ice Age] as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming."

You have been challenged to explain why the initial warming occurred absent increased CO2 and to explain why, if that cause was sufficient to stop cooling of the LIA, why that cause is not sufficient to continue the warming which seems to have continued until shortly before our current decade.

Your case depends on CO2 being, if not the only then certainly, the prime mover in climate change and it seems that the climate changes just fine without it.

Prove your case.

You seem to want to ignore the question of what caused the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The material I posted discussed the possible natural causes, such as the period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity that put a lot of dust and other particles in the upper atmosphere. As these natural factors changed, the affected portions of the world began to get warmer again naturally but all of that was within the bounds of normal variation. Since 1850, the Earth has started on an trend of rapidly rising temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal variation and is scientifically linked to the rising CO2 levels mankind has created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

One of your denier cult straw-man arguments is that scientists assert that CO2 is the only mover in climate change but that is just ignorant stupidity on your part. Climate scientists are well aware that there are a number of natural factors that influence the Earth's climate patterns. They have found though that none of these natural factors can be responsible for the current abrupt warming trend and that the increased CO2 levels are the main factor driving the current warming and climate changes.

Only waiting 3 months now s0n!!!! Still cant illustrate with a single link how the "consensus" is mattering.

 

[code1211]

Prove your case.

You seem to want to ignore the question of what caused the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The material I posted discussed the possible natural causes, such as the period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity that put a lot of dust and other particles in the upper atmosphere. As these natural factors changed, the affected portions of the world began to get warmer again naturally but all of that was within the bounds of normal variation. Since 1850, the Earth has started on an trend of rapidly rising temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal variation and is scientifically linked to the rising CO2 levels mankind has created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

One of your denier cult straw-man arguments is that scientists assert that CO2 is the only mover in climate change but that is just ignorant stupidity on your part. Climate scientists are well aware that there are a number of natural factors that influence the Earth's climate patterns. They have found though that none of these natural factors can be responsible for the current abrupt warming trend and that the increased CO2 levels are the main factor driving the current warming and climate changes.

Ah, finally!

A response with a thesis instead of just the Joker-like laughing. At least the part I have quoted.

The assertion of the AGW crowd is that the warming is caused by the activities of man. You accept that as fact with no supporting proof.

It is wise to note that the warming from the year zero to the year 1000 outpaced the warming from the year 1001 to the year 2000. There is a warming trend in progress that seems to operate independently of the amount of CO2 in the air. The trend from the year 2001 to current, incidentally, seems a little flat. Are we witnessing the continuation of the climate increase slow down?

I am familiar with the Maunder Minimum and have asserted numerous times that all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate.

Because CO2 rises with very predictable steadiness and the temperature vacillates up and down within the same range of variation that it seems to have followed since the year 0, I am not convinced that eliminating the use of Fossil Fuel will have any impact on climate whatever.

Add to this consideration that both the CO2 and the temperature are bottoming out as readings compared to what data suggests occurred during the last 50 million years and we see that we are in a bit of an anomolous low for both of these on this planet.

My case is that natural factors drive the changes in climate. One of these many factors is CO2, but it is more like a passenger on the train than the track on which it rides. If anything is the track, that would be the Sun's radiation as is powerfully demonstrated by the Maunder Minimum, a cloudy day or sunset.

If you are campaigning to change society based on a theory that you are trying to prove, it is up to you to prove your case.

Prove it.

Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art
File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art
File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[RollingThunder]

You seem to want to ignore the question of what caused the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The material I posted discussed the possible natural causes, such as the period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity that put a lot of dust and other particles in the upper atmosphere. As these natural factors changed, the affected portions of the world began to get warmer again naturally but all of that was within the bounds of normal variation. Since 1850, the Earth has started on an trend of rapidly rising temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal variation and is scientifically linked to the rising CO2 levels mankind has created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

One of your denier cult straw-man arguments is that scientists assert that CO2 is the only mover in climate change but that is just ignorant stupidity on your part. Climate scientists are well aware that there are a number of natural factors that influence the Earth's climate patterns. They have found though that none of these natural factors can be responsible for the current abrupt warming trend and that the increased CO2 levels are the main factor driving the current warming and climate changes.

The assertion of the AGW crowd is that the warming is caused by the activities of man. You accept that as fact with no supporting proof.

No I don't, nitwit, and neither do the vast majority of scientists in the world who understand this way better than you do and who agree with conclusions of the climate scientists. There is actually an enormous amount of supporting evidence but you've got your head shoved too far up the rightwingnut denier cult willy-hole to be able to see that.

It is wise to note that the warming from the year zero to the year 1000 outpaced the warming from the year 1001 to the year 2000.

Total bullshit, code4stupid. Do you just pull this crazy nonsense out of your ass or did you parrot it off some denier cult blog?

Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2000 Years
NOAA

Summary of Proxy Temperature Studies
Scientific References of Studies

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
* The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

There is a warming trend in progress that seems to operate independently of the amount of CO2 in the air.

That may be one of your moronic denier cult myths but it has no scientific support.

I...have asserted numerous times that all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate.

LOLOLOLOL....I guess it's would be too much to expect a clueless brainwashed dupe like you to know the meaning of the term 'tautology'.

 

[skookerasbil]

You seem to want to ignore the question of what caused the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The material I posted discussed the possible natural causes, such as the period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity that put a lot of dust and other particles in the upper atmosphere. As these natural factors changed, the affected portions of the world began to get warmer again naturally but all of that was within the bounds of normal variation. Since 1850, the Earth has started on an trend of rapidly rising temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal variation and is scientifically linked to the rising CO2 levels mankind has created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

One of your denier cult straw-man arguments is that scientists assert that CO2 is the only mover in climate change but that is just ignorant stupidity on your part. Climate scientists are well aware that there are a number of natural factors that influence the Earth's climate patterns. They have found though that none of these natural factors can be responsible for the current abrupt warming trend and that the increased CO2 levels are the main factor driving the current warming and climate changes.

The assertion of the AGW crowd is that the warming is caused by the activities of man. You accept that as fact with no supporting proof.

No I don't, nitwit, and neither do the vast majority of scientists in the world who understand this way better than you do and who agree with conclusions of the climate scientists. There is actually an enormous amount of supporting evidence but you've got your head shoved too far up the rightwingnut denier cult willy-hole to be able to see that.






Total bullshit, code4stupid. Do you just pull this crazy nonsense out of your ass or did you parrot it off some denier cult blog?

Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2000 Years
NOAA

Summary of Proxy Temperature Studies
Scientific References of Studies

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
* The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

There is a warming trend in progress that seems to operate independently of the amount of CO2 in the air.

That may be one of your moronic denier cult myths but it has no scientific support.

I...have asserted numerous times that all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate.

LOLOLOLOL....I guess it's would be too much to expect a clueless brainwashed dupe like you to know the meaning of the term 'tautology'.

For the uninformed, Skooks here, asked Rolling Thunder to come up with a single link illustrating to us how all the "consensus" science is mattering in the real world of public policy. Asked the cheesedick three months ago..........but...........ooooooooooooooooooooooooooops. No links..........but still, the science temperature-glacier-CO2 BS that has become a mere hobby in the nether regions of the internet.

So Uncle Harry here is going to be making many appearances after his gay posts

 

[skookerasbil]

Links to prove otherwise???

 

[code1211]

You seem to want to ignore the question of what caused the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The material I posted discussed the possible natural causes, such as the period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum and an increase in volcanic activity that put a lot of dust and other particles in the upper atmosphere. As these natural factors changed, the affected portions of the world began to get warmer again naturally but all of that was within the bounds of normal variation. Since 1850, the Earth has started on an trend of rapidly rising temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal variation and is scientifically linked to the rising CO2 levels mankind has created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

One of your denier cult straw-man arguments is that scientists assert that CO2 is the only mover in climate change but that is just ignorant stupidity on your part. Climate scientists are well aware that there are a number of natural factors that influence the Earth's climate patterns. They have found though that none of these natural factors can be responsible for the current abrupt warming trend and that the increased CO2 levels are the main factor driving the current warming and climate changes.

The assertion of the AGW crowd is that the warming is caused by the activities of man. You accept that as fact with no supporting proof.

No I don't, nitwit, and neither do the vast majority of scientists in the world who understand this way better than you do and who agree with conclusions of the climate scientists. There is actually an enormous amount of supporting evidence but you've got your head shoved too far up the rightwingnut denier cult willy-hole to be able to see that.






Total bullshit, code4stupid. Do you just pull this crazy nonsense out of your ass or did you parrot it off some denier cult blog?

Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2000 Years
NOAA

Summary of Proxy Temperature Studies
Scientific References of Studies

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
* The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

There is a warming trend in progress that seems to operate independently of the amount of CO2 in the air.

That may be one of your moronic denier cult myths but it has no scientific support.

I...have asserted numerous times that all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate.

LOLOLOLOL....I guess it's would be too much to expect a clueless brainwashed dupe like you to know the meaning of the term 'tautology'.

Nobody could read your posts without understanding the meaning of repetition. The way I used the words repeated the words, but not the meaning. A bit too complex for you to discern?

The English language is pretty complex.

You are reposting the same tired cut and paste articles and not addressing what I am saying.

When you have something new to add that is like a response to the data that is presented, let me know.

Keep laughing. It's what you're good at.

 

[konradv]

If you are campaigning to change society based on a theory that you are trying to prove, it is up to you to prove your case.

Prove it.

A results in B. A is increasing. Therefore, B will increase. QED

 

[skookerasbil]

If you are campaigning to change society based on a theory that you are trying to prove, it is up to you to prove your case.

Prove it.

A results in B. A is increasing. Therefore, B will increase. QED

BUT NOBODY CARES!!!

 

[bripat9643]

If you are campaigning to change society based on a theory that you are trying to prove, it is up to you to prove your case.

Prove it.

A results in B. A is increasing. Therefore, B will increase. QED

You have yet to demonstrate the first premise. Furthermore, your claim is an example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, not to mention begging the question.

 

[RollingThunder]

The assertion of the AGW crowd is that the warming is caused by the activities of man. You accept that as fact with no supporting proof.

No I don't, nitwit, and neither do the vast majority of scientists in the world who understand this way better than you do and who agree with conclusions of the climate scientists. There is actually an enormous amount of supporting evidence but you've got your head shoved too far up the rightwingnut denier cult willy-hole to be able to see that.

It is wise to note that the warming from the year zero to the year 1000 outpaced the warming from the year 1001 to the year 2000.

Total bullshit, code4stupid. Do you just pull this crazy nonsense out of your ass or did you parrot it off some denier cult blog?

Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2000 Years
NOAA

Summary of Proxy Temperature Studies
Scientific References of Studies

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
* The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

I...have asserted numerous times that all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate.

LOLOLOLOL....I guess it's would be too much to expect a clueless brainwashed dupe like you to know the meaning of the term 'tautology'.

Nobody could read your posts without understanding the meaning of repetition. The way I used the words repeated the words, but not the meaning. A bit too complex for you to discern? The English language is pretty complex.

You are reposting the same tired cut and paste articles and not addressing what I am saying. When you have something new to add that is like a response to the data that is presented, let me know.

You poor deluded retard, you haven't "presented" any "data", just idiotic misinformation and lies that you pulled out of your butt.

You claimed that it had warmed more from 1AD to 1000AD than it has from 1000AD to the present, which is completely wrong. I presented the scientific information from NOAA that demolishes your moronic claim.

You still can't comprehend the meaning of 'tautology', apparently. Not too surprising, given what an idiot you obviously are. Saying that "all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate" is like saying that 'all of the cars traveling to Cleveland will travel to Cleveland'.

 

[code1211]

No I don't, nitwit, and neither do the vast majority of scientists in the world who understand this way better than you do and who agree with conclusions of the climate scientists. There is actually an enormous amount of supporting evidence but you've got your head shoved too far up the rightwingnut denier cult willy-hole to be able to see that.




Total bullshit, code4stupid. Do you just pull this crazy nonsense out of your ass or did you parrot it off some denier cult blog?

Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2000 Years
NOAA

Summary of Proxy Temperature Studies
Scientific References of Studies

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
* The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.




LOLOLOLOL....I guess it's would be too much to expect a clueless brainwashed dupe like you to know the meaning of the term 'tautology'.

Nobody could read your posts without understanding the meaning of repetition. The way I used the words repeated the words, but not the meaning. A bit too complex for you to discern? The English language is pretty complex.

You are reposting the same tired cut and paste articles and not addressing what I am saying. When you have something new to add that is like a response to the data that is presented, let me know.

You poor deluded retard, you haven't "presented" any "data", just idiotic misinformation and lies that you pulled out of your butt.

You claimed that it had warmed more from 1AD to 1000AD than it has from 1000AD to the present, which is completely wrong. I presented the scientific information from NOAA that demolishes your moronic claim.

You still can't comprehend the meaning of 'tautology', apparently. Not too surprising, given what an idiot you obviously are. Saying that "all of the various factors impacting climate will impact climate" is like saying that 'all of the cars traveling to Cleveland will travel to Cleveland'.

Then prove your case.

 

[RollingThunder]

You claimed that it had warmed more from 1AD to 1000AD than it has from 1000AD to the present, which is completely wrong. I presented the scientific information from NOAA that demolishes your moronic claim.

Then prove your case.

I did. You're unfortunately just too stupid to see it.

 

[skookerasbil]

You claimed that it had warmed more from 1AD to 1000AD than it has from 1000AD to the present, which is completely wrong. I presented the scientific information from NOAA that demolishes your moronic claim.

Then prove your case.

I did. You're unfortunately just too stupid to see it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.

No, but you're arguing correlation equals causation.

No, I'm not.

You are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A physicist huh. You claim that the rise in CO2 is the proximal cause of the increase in temperature. You show cute graphs to support that contention.

The "cute" graph, as you call it, at issue is this one:

I never claimed this data lone supports the conclusion that Co2 is the cause of the recent temperature increase. I have claimed that this graph represents conclusive evidence that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 levels is caused mostly by man. Do you disagree?

That's because in the past Co2 increases have been caused by warmer temperatures brought about because of Milankovitch cycles and possibly other factors,

I fail to see your point.


Yes, but we have data which conclusively indicates the current rapid rise in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man. Its in the graph above. Its very simple. All of a sudden, in less than 200 years, man put about 1200 gigatons into the atmosphere. In the same period, atmospheric Co2 has risen 800 gigatons.

The conclusion that that 800 gigaton increase would still be there even if man had not added 1200 gigatons - which appears to be what you are saying - is not supported by logic or common sense. Your contention that a warming peak several hundred years ago could somehow cause the sudden, rapid rise of Co2 levels as seen in the above graph - instead of the sudden, rapid rise of man producing more than enough Co2 to account for the increase - is frankly, absurd, and it tells us just how much of a mental retard you are.

There you go. Correlation that doesn't involve man at all. See how science is done? Now go test both hypotheses and become famous.

I see how you do science, yes. Which is horrible. It involves completely ignoring data which does not lead to the conclusion you want. You say that correlation does not equal causation yet you haven't even speculated at the causal link between a warming episode hundreds of years ago and the rapid rise of Co2 now - you ASSUME one exists because of correlation.

Absurd to you. However that is EXACTLY what the Vostock ice cores show us. Hundreds of years of nothing and then a sudden spike of CO2 hundreds of years after the warming.

And this means the warming causes the Co2 to increase hundreds of years later?

I thought you said correlation does not mean causation?