Antarctic ice reveals more about the consensus nonsense than the climate

[CrusaderFrank]

Oldrocks, I am starting to believe that these conservatives really are inbreeds and have become a inferior species of humans incapable of compassion, critical thought or grunts lot.

They won't be looking at any research paper because their small minds couldn't wrap around the concept.

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

What is so damned funny about all of your questions is that I know how the proxies that give us that data are obtained. Yes, we can determined the temperature of the Arctic in 1287, the temperatures in various places in the Atlantic ocean in 1423. And physics will give us the distance to the moon in 1423. Sunspot activity can be determined for that date, also. Directly, from observations, and, indirectly from proxies.

Sorry that you are such a dolt, Mikey boi, but these are not new methods, were known in the 20th Century. What are you, about 13 years old?

That's somewhat correct. The Vostock ice cores show that CO2 lags temperature by 800-1,000 year on both the increase and decrease, but that is ignored by the AGW Cult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

Except we don't have just 100 years of data. And we have the physics, in additional to the millions of years of historical data.

You're babbling the opposite of reality. You're acting like an idiot child. You shouldn't be bothering the grownups. Have a juice box, and go watch SpongeBob.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

You yourself could look up the answers to all of those things, if your political/religious cult didn't forbid you from such heresy. But you won't. It scares you, the thought you might learn something that contradicts your cult's teachings.

We know that life flourished in a high CO2 environment, 60 foot snakes and turtles the size of a small business. So hyperventilating over 200ppm of CO2, is silly

 

[miketx]

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

Except we don't have just 100 years of data. And we have the physics, in additional to the millions of years of historical data.

You're babbling the opposite of reality. You're acting like an idiot child. You shouldn't be bothering the grownups. Have a juice box, and go watch SpongeBob.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

You yourself could look up the answers to all of those things, if your political/religious cult didn't forbid you from such heresy. But you won't. It scares you, the thought you might learn something that contradicts your cult's teachings.

YOU HAVE NO ACTUAL DATA!

 

[skookerasbil]

That's the lib. When you are backed into a corner start the attacks.

Its becoming the next bumper sticker to follow LIBERALISM IS AMENTAL DISORDER. When, like as frequently happens in these pages, you start seeing "retard", "idiot child", "dumb fcuk", et. al...........in every other sentence, you know one thing: they members of the religion are feeling stoppid because in a public forum, they are getting pwned.

so ghey

Once in a blue moon I'll call somebody a dummy or mental case but almost invariably it is a commentary on blatant levels of naïve..............don't have to sling insults when you are dominating.

 

[polarbear]

That's the lib. When you are backed into a corner start the attacks.

Its becoming the next bumper sticker to follow LIBERALISM IS AMENTAL DISORDER. When, like as frequently happens in these pages, you start seeing "retard", "idiot child", "dumb fcuk", et. al...........in every other sentence, you know one thing: they members of the religion are feeling stoppid because in a public forum, they are getting pwned.

so ghey

Once in a blue moon I'll call somebody a dummy or mental case but almost invariably it is a commentary on blatant levels of naïve..............don't have to sling insults when you are dominating.

Yeah that`s how they react when posting/texting is the conduit. Face to face it`s just as easy to spot a liberal. It`s the one with a condescending smile when a serious problem is discussed.
For example the sort of stupid school teacher smile when you confront her because your child is getting harassed at school. It`s supposed to make you angry and even if you don`t get angry they continue the spiel with answering your question with the question "why are you so angry?"
But the other way around like when they try and lecture you with their hair brained ideas and you sit there and listen with a Tucker Carlson face expression their heads explode.

 

[SSDD]

Oldrocks, I am starting to believe that these conservatives really are inbreeds and have become a inferior species of humans incapable of compassion, critical thought or grunts lot.

They won't be looking at any research paper because their small minds couldn't wrap around the concept.

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

What is so damned funny about all of your questions is that I know how the proxies that give us that data are obtained. Yes, we can determined the temperature of the Arctic in 1287, the temperatures in various places in the Atlantic ocean in 1423. And physics will give us the distance to the moon in 1423. Sunspot activity can be determined for that date, also. Directly, from observations, and, indirectly from proxies.

Sorry that you are such a dolt, Mikey boi, but these are not new methods, were known in the 20th Century. What are you, about 13 years old?

That's somewhat correct. The Vostock ice cores show that CO2 lags temperature by 800-1,000 year on both the increase and decrease, but that is ignored by the AGW Cult

As is everything that isn't convenient...like physics, and the scientific method.

 

[jc456]

The world is getting warmer. Increasing CO2 is the primary cause. Increased temperatures result in less ice.

Rocket science this ain't.

to which you can't prove. so it's your opinion. I wish you would post that correctly.

 

[jc456]

What do you think is untrue? Do you think the world is not getting warmer? If it is, do you have some cause other than CO2? Do you believe warming the planet would not result in less ice? Where exactly do you see "fake science"?

I know the world is not getting warmer. I know this because of the need to manufacture temperature in charts to show it warming. So it must not be, otherwise, the raw data would be used. And again, it's merely your opinion since you can't prove your hypothesis.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oldrocks, I am starting to believe that these conservatives really are inbreeds and have become a inferior species of humans incapable of compassion, critical thought or grunts lot.

They won't be looking at any research paper because their small minds couldn't wrap around the concept.

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

What is so damned funny about all of your questions is that I know how the proxies that give us that data are obtained. Yes, we can determined the temperature of the Arctic in 1287, the temperatures in various places in the Atlantic ocean in 1423. And physics will give us the distance to the moon in 1423. Sunspot activity can be determined for that date, also. Directly, from observations, and, indirectly from proxies.

Sorry that you are such a dolt, Mikey boi, but these are not new methods, were known in the 20th Century. What are you, about 13 years old?

That's somewhat correct. The Vostock ice cores show that CO2 lags temperature by 800-1,000 year on both the increase and decrease, but that is ignored by the AGW Cult

As is everything that isn't convenient...like physics, and the scientific method.

Consensus is not a word in science; it's a cult word

 

[SSDD]

Oldrocks, I am starting to believe that these conservatives really are inbreeds and have become a inferior species of humans incapable of compassion, critical thought or grunts lot.

They won't be looking at any research paper because their small minds couldn't wrap around the concept.

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

What is so damned funny about all of your questions is that I know how the proxies that give us that data are obtained. Yes, we can determined the temperature of the Arctic in 1287, the temperatures in various places in the Atlantic ocean in 1423. And physics will give us the distance to the moon in 1423. Sunspot activity can be determined for that date, also. Directly, from observations, and, indirectly from proxies.

Sorry that you are such a dolt, Mikey boi, but these are not new methods, were known in the 20th Century. What are you, about 13 years old?

That's somewhat correct. The Vostock ice cores show that CO2 lags temperature by 800-1,000 year on both the increase and decrease, but that is ignored by the AGW Cult

As is everything that isn't convenient...like physics, and the scientific method.

Consensus is not a word in science; it's a cult word

Especially among glassy eyed chanting cults.

 

[jc456]

Do you have evidence that data has been unjustifiably manipulated? The only thing we have EVER seen here is that you claim it is being adjusted to make warming look worse that that that is proof that it's unwarranted. The truth is that most of the adjustments have reduced the amount of warming and that all of that has been perfectly justified. Your argument here is the same massive conspiracy that your desperation has led you to - you have no real argument so you've made this one up.

Really and truly pathetic.

Do you have evidence that data has been unjustifiably manipulated

I love it, you acknowledge the manipulation. hahahaahahha, oh, my signature can take care of that laugh.

 

[jc456]

I thought the data you had for the last 100 years was perfect.

project much?

 

[jc456]

I never said any such thing. You can't help but lie and distort can you? No wonder most people don't believe the BS climate crap. Just keep on twisting and lying, that's all you losers got.

You claimed that your data supported real science and that older data did not. Do you not understand what you yourself are saying?

dude, why don't you ever use quotes? you are always wrong with your retakes.

 

[jc456]

That's the lib. When you are backed into a corner start the attacks.

Its becoming the next bumper sticker to follow LIBERALISM IS AMENTAL DISORDER. When, like as frequently happens in these pages, you start seeing "retard", "idiot child", "dumb fcuk", et. al...........in every other sentence, you know one thing: they members of the religion are feeling stoppid because in a public forum, they are getting pwned.

so ghey

Once in a blue moon I'll call somebody a dummy or mental case but almost invariably it is a commentary on blatant levels of naïve..............don't have to sling insults when you are dominating.

I'm always honored to be insulted, it proves I'm factual.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/sites/secu...s/sitefiles/people/lea/Lea_2014_TOG_00614.pdf

Determining the temperature evolution of the oceans is one of the most important problems in geosciences. Temperature is the most primary representation of the state of the climate system, and the temperature of the oceans is critical because the oceans are the dominant component of the Earth’s internal climate system in terms of influencing climate change on timescales of greater than a few hundred years. A set of isotopic and elemental proxies preserved in marine carbonate sediments and rocks provides earth scientists with a complementary set of approaches to determine past ocean temperatures. This is a field with both a long history and a great deal of recent progress. Paleotemperature research has been at the forefront of geoscience research for over 50 years and, with our need to understand the global climate system heightened by modern climate change, it promises to remain a vibrant and important area well into the future.

The first edition of this chapter gave an overview of research in this field as of mid-2002. In the intervening decade, there has been a great deal of progress in a number of areas within the field of elemental and isotopic proxies of temperature, among them development of the clumped isotope approach in biogenic carbonates, refinements of the foraminiferal Mg/Ca proxy, and application of both oxygen isotopes and Mg/Ca to high-resolution paleoclimate sequences of the last few millennia. This second edition preserves the structure and content of the first edition while surveying some of these newer contributions.

Here you go, Mikey. This is how scientists do what you claim cannot be done.

 

[miketx]

With no base data to compare it to, as a PROOF, your junk science cannot EVER be proven to be correct. Because charlatans accept it as true only proves how dangerous they are in the unending quest to manipulate research and peoples minds based on liberal bullshit. We only thought Magic and alchemy was bad.Now you use machines to fool people via the extreme complex nature of modern computer research to brow beat the layman.

 

[jc456]

I can readily access several thousand pages of peer reviewed scientific studies that fully support that contention. Whadda you got?

4 billion years. What was the the ocean temperature in 1465?

What was the temperature of the ocean 100 meters off the shoreline of Dallas, Texas on Jun 11, 1974?

so crick, curious, when did the ice start to thaw out of an ice age? was it because CO2 increased or because temperatures increased. Once you have that figured out, you'll know which follows which. I'll wait.

 

[skookerasbil]

The AGW crowd has been standing on one leg for years now........in 2017, its barely a leg left.

I said 20 years ago it ( AGW ) was going to be a fad. Knew it would take awhile for them to be exposed.

The "consensus" doesn't matter anymore........as we'll all see later today when President Trump walks out with a baseball bat to the head of the EPA!!

 

[polarbear]

Do you have evidence that data has been unjustifiably manipulated? The only thing we have EVER seen here is that you claim it is being adjusted to make warming look worse that that that is proof that it's unwarranted. The truth is that most of the adjustments have reduced the amount of warming and that all of that has been perfectly justified. Your argument here is the same massive conspiracy that your desperation has led you to - you have no real argument so you've made this one up.

Really and truly pathetic.

Do you have evidence that data has been unjustifiably manipulated

I love it, you acknowledge the manipulation. hahahaahahha, oh, my signature can take care of that laugh.

He also acknowledged that data manipulation is "justifiable". That became abundantly clear after M.Mann`s email was hacked. After that all efforts to spin the CO2 into a yarn that can be woven into invisible blankets became futile. Nobody is buying !

 

[Crick]

No one has ever denied that data has been adjusted. All those adjustments have been made to improve accuracy. Deniers have never produced a single fucking shred of evidence actually showing that adjustments were unjustified or intended to make the situation look worse. Not one single climate scientist, whose life works depend on the accuracy of those data, has ever been found to complain about it. Not a single person among the hundreds or thousands of individuals who would have to be involved has ever confessed or even inadvertently given away what would have to be a massive and perfectly coordinated conspiracy.

You people are either stupid enough to believe such nonsense or amoral enough to not mind pushing such an unbelievable fantasy.