Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[abu afak]

Greenland Ice cores say you and your science are full of shit.

I will go with Empirical Evidence for 1000..

And the answer is.....

View attachment 703763

This is very differnt from your fantasy, model driven, pile of BS...

Greenland Ice cores are NOT Global Temperature (if they lag a bit they are PERFECT... for me), and again your graphs stopped too early and WE did spike it up.
It does Not refute AGW/me you ldiot. Thx!
`
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Greenland Ice cores are NOT Global Temperature (if they lag a bit they are PERFECT... for me), and again your graphs stopped too early and WE did spike it up.
It does not refute me you ldiot. Thx!
`
`

`

When you hide the decline and multiply by Mann's Nature Trick, you get amazing modern results for CO2, but just American CO2, Chinese CO2 is different, because per capita, er, or something....science

 

[abu afak]

You mean this graph..?

View attachment 703685

Once again you make a complete ldiot of yourself.
Using a 450,000 year span graph (6" wide) to decide if the last 150 are relevant to a warming trend/DOH!
Ridiculous, along with others here.

If one uses a scale that IS relevant and means something to the timetable/Scale in question, here's what you get is ie,
Well known Marcott.
Which stops in 2000 or 2013, and since which the Temperature has set even new higher records, and Every Year Hotter than 2013.
(2016 and 2020 being highest)
and with temperature catching up but following/lagging CO2.
SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.
More representations showing the OBVIOUS available.
We were cooling before we turned on the engines.

and

Unfortunately for you, Your "Eyes" are looking in the wrong place/scale/brain.
You remain destroyed on every attempt.
(who can forget ""solar panels are useless when it's warm""!!!)

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Once again you make a complete ldiot of yourself.
Using a 450,000 year span graph (6" wide) to decide if the last 150 are relevant to a warming trend/DOH!
Ridiculous, along with others here.

If one uses a scale that IS relevant and means something to the timetable/Scale in question, here's what you get is ie,
Well known Marcott.
Which stops in 2000 or 2013, and since which the Temperature has set even new higher records, and Every Year Hotter than 2013.
(2016 and 2020 being highest)
and with temperature catching up but following/lagging CO2.
SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.
More representations showing the OBVIOUS available.
We were cooling before we turned on the engines.

View attachment 703771

and


Unfortunately for you, Your "Eyes" are looking in the wrong place/scale/brain.
You remain destroyed on every attempt.
(who can forget ""solar panels are useless when it's warm""!!!)

`

Repeating crap over and over again doesn't make it true. Even Stomata proxies kill your BS..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again you make a complete ldiot of yourself.
Using a 450,000 year span graph (6" wide) to decide if the last 150 are relevant to a warming trend/DOH!
Ridiculous, along with others here.

If one uses a scale that IS relevant and means something to the timetable/Scale in question, here's what you get is ie,
Well known Marcott.
Which stops in 2000 or 2013, and since which the Temperature has set even new higher records, and Every Year Hotter than 2013.
(2016 and 2020 being highest)
and with temperature catching up but following/lagging CO2.
SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.
More representations showing the OBVIOUS available.
We were cooling before we turned on the engines.

View attachment 703771

and
View attachment 703775

Unfortunately for you, Your "Eyes" are looking in the wrong place/scale/brain.
You remain destroyed on every attempt.
(who can forget ""solar panels are useless when it's warm""!!!)

`

SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.

Sounds serious! What were the 3 next largest 150 year "spikes" in the last 12,000 years?

 

[abu afak]

SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.

Sounds serious! What were the 3 next largest 150 year "spikes" in the last 12,000 years?

Easy to see .. there were none #sshole,.
Thanks for the lay-up/underline.
You couldn't see that? everything close in gap was over a much longer period.
AGW.

You are a One line troll, Most of whose posts are stupid backfiring riddles.
You contribute Nothing in the way of Info
You've wasted your brain... all 75 IQ points
and you have NO integrity.
You are shlt whose devoted most of his days trolling the internet with nothing to say.
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Easy to see .. there were none #sshole,.
Thanks for the lay-up/underline.
You couldn't see that? everything close in gap was over a much longer period.
AGW.

You are a One line troll, Most of whose posts are stupid backfiring riddles.
You contribute Nothing in the way of Info
You've wasted your brain... all 75 IQ points
and you have NO integrity.
You are shlt whose devoted most of his days trolling the internet with nothing to say.
`

Easy to see .. there were none #sshole,.

No other spikes in the last 12,000 years? Are you drunk?

Any increases at all before the last 150 years?

Thanks for the lay-up/underline.

No problem. Any time you'd like another own goal, let me know.

 

[ReinyDays]

... to decide if the last 150 are relevant to a warming trend ...

Then only the period 1980 to present ... because between 1940 and 1980 we experienced global cooling ...

You don't understand Billy_Bob ... you make yourself a fool trying to dispute him ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then only the period 1980 to present ... because between 1940 and 1980 we experienced global cooling ...

You don't understand Billy_Bob ... you make yourself a fool trying to dispute him ...

Naw... Sometimes you have to expose the lie for all to see. The fact he must repeat the lie over and over again exposes his foolishness. Two different proxies disprove him. IF you look at his model derived fiction you will note they all state "with uncertainties" but never tell us what those uncertainties are or how much they are. I love that he is touting Mann-Jones, Hadley and the CRU's work, that made me laugh as those are all works of climate fiction.

 

[abu afak]

Easy to see .. there were none #sshole,.

No other spikes in the last 12,000 years? Are you drunk?
Any increases at all before the last 150 years?

My claim wasn't if there are "any."
It was:
""You couldn't see that? everything close in gap was over a Much Longer Period.""

So you DISHONESTLY tried to change my claim.
Not only that, YOU didn't come up with any :^)
You are a transparently Phony POS.
You Lose.
Question mark that ahoIe.
`

 

[abu afak]

Then only the period 1980 to present ... because between 1940 and 1980 we experienced global cooling ...

You don't understand Billy_Bob ... you make yourself a fool trying to dispute him ...

False .
It went 'down' from app 1943 to 1963, then flat, and started going back up.
One does Not expect every longer trend to be perfect over any period.
The obvious trend since Industrialization. THE issue.
`

 

[Crick]

See from 135,000 BP to 125,000 BP ... better than 13ºC temperature increase for the 80 ppm CO2 concentration increase ... we've added another 135 ppm and seen a 1ºC increase ...

Math is hard ...

No one has ever suggested that CO2 is the only thing that causes warming.

 

[Crick]

Greenland Ice cores say you and your science are full of shit.

I will go with Empirical Evidence for 1000..

And the answer is.....

View attachment 703763

This is very differnt from your fantasy, model driven, pile of BS...

If you were actually what you say you were you would know that Greenland ice cores do NOT track well with the actual global temperature trends.

 

[abu afak]

Repeating crap over and over again doesn't make it true. Even Stomata proxies kill your BS..

View attachment 703776

You keep posting local Ice cores, not Global Temp.
Get another hobby.
You make THEE Stupldest posts on this topic.
You should have crawled under a rock two debates ago.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you were actually what you say you were you would know that Greenland ice cores do NOT track well with the actual global temperature trends.

Why not? because it denies CO2 ability to drive the climate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My claim wasn't if there are "any."
It was:
""You couldn't see that? everything close in gap was over a Much Longer Period.""

So you DISHONESTLY tried to change my claim.
Not only that, YOU didn't come up with any :^)
You are a transparently Phony POS.
You Lose.
Question mark that ahoIe.
`

Can't you fucking read?

What were the 3 next largest 150 year "spikes"

 

[ding]

No one has ever suggested that CO2 is the only thing that causes warming.

Not according to the IPCC’s estimate of radiative forcing components.

 

[Crick]

Not according to the IPCC’s estimate of radiative forcing components.

I just posted a graph of such data. It has several entries in the warming column. And those graphs, at best, deal with effects since 1850. Hardly a significant portion of an interglacial cycle.

 

[ding]

I just posted a graph of such data. It has several entries in the warming column. And those graphs, at best, deal with effects since 1850. Hardly a significant portion of an interglacial cycle.

And other than CO2 none are significant enough to drive warming or cooling changes. And yet the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

 

[Crick]

And other than CO2 none are significant enough to drive warming or cooling changes.

HAHAHAAaaaa... that's rather the point.

The IPCC's conclusion is that CO2 is the largest causative factor of the observed warming. That does NOT say it is the only one, but it is the biggest.