Proof of AGW fraud

[SSDD]

Ice cores are an actual measure of land temperatures at the ice code.

What the hell is an ice code?

If ocean ice ever melts off, there is then no ice core capability, so then no actual measurement data. And using land data to guess at ocean temperatures, is incredibly inaccurate.

Yeah...you keep saying that. You keep saying that there is no actual measurement data which could show that the ice is less now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...then you claim that the northwest passage has not been open for 10,000 years. To know that would require measurement data according to you. So on what evidence do you claim that the northwest passage has not been open for 10,000 years if measurement data is not possible?

 

[SSDD]

No, it is clear you do not understand graphs.
The scale of the graph is a span of 10,000 years, so the blip of the hockey stick tip is totally invisible. You can't see it. The interval of the last 1000 years worth of data totally overwhelms it and averages it out of existence on the graph.
The ONLY way we can tell where the hockey stick tip extends, is that they put an arrow with the year 2016 pointing near to the 1 degree increase mark, on the far right axis.

Of course the last 1000 years have been cooler than the 7000 years preceding that. It is supposed to be cooler. We are supposed to have ended the warming at the end of the last interglacial period, and and starting to be cooling off again. But the last 50 years are what is wrong. They are NOT cooling, but heating higher than anything else on the entire graph. Such quick changes do NOT show up on graphs that have too great of a span of time as the scale.

I read graphs just fine...and unlike you, I don't interpret them to mean something that they don't. If you look at year zero, at the bottom right of the graph, that represents the present...the end of the black temperature line is the present temperature...now as you follow the black temperature line to the left, you see that it dips down into the little ice age and then starts climbing, the further back in history you go. By the time you get back to the period of the medieval warm period, the black line shows a higher temperature than the present...by the time you get back to the roman warm period, the line shows an even warmer temperature, and by the time you get back to the minoan warm period, it was even warmer...and again, if the earth was warmer back then, then there would have been less ice unless you think that ice didn't melt when it was warm back in the old days.


And your obsession with the hockey stick is laughable...it has been debunked so many times it is ridiculous. Why do you think michael mann has spent millions of dollars trying to keep his research data hidden? He knows that if it ever gets out and actual scientists ever get a chance to look at it, and write scientific papers on it, he will be disgraced to the point that his career, and al the money will be nothing more than a memory.

 

[SSDD]

Who ever said that the earth isn't warming? It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...and it still isn't as warm as it was before the onset of the little ice age...what would make anyone think that it won't warm up at least to the temperature it was before the onset of the little ice age?

That is idiotic.

It is NOT supposed to be warming now.
We are past the ice age by 20,000 years, it had already reached the warming peak, and it is now supposed to be cooling again. And that is what was happening until about 40 years ago.

You clearly know nothing about earth's history, climate, or anything related to this subject.

And ice age cycles are 120 thousand years long.
The cycles were are forcing, are more like 200 years long for the same range of change.

Tell me, by what metric do you say it is "supposed" to be doing anything. all the temperature reconstructions show that our climate is chaotic with warming and cooling periods happening at seemingly random intervals between glaciations...

You seem to just be making it up as you go because you certainly aren't showing anything like actual science to back up your claims.

Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.
It is only weather that is chaotic, not climate.
Climate can NOT be chaotic.
The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.

I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented. There can be chaotic influences on climate and weather, but there are none now except for humans adding over 5 trillion tons of sequestered carbon into the air every single year.

The climate chaotic. The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.

That is not at all true.
Night is completely different from day, but it is not at all chaotic. Change that is regular and predictable cycles is not chaotic. Things that influence climate are not at all chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, but climate is not at all chaotic, unless something additional is added, like a comet strike or humans burning billions of tons of additional carbon a year. Humans and comets are chaotic, not normal climate influences.

Regardless of what you believe, science itself says that the earth's climate is chaotic. The IPCC defines the climate as a coupled, chaotic, non linear system. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you still haven't provided the first piece of actual science to support anything that you have said.

 

[SSDD]

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying. Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.

Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica. If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...

 

[SSDD]

The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.

Yea...over thousands of years...not decades

Ice cores are all the same temp idiot, they measure precip not temps

You friggin dolt. It's not that it IS ice...but what is in the ice that is measuredIceCore.htm

IceCore.htm

Actually over millions of years kid

Wrong.
There is no climate cycle that is over a million years long.
The most significant climate cycle in the last 10 million years has been the interglacial cycle of 120 thousand years.
Before that things were different, but that is due to things we know little about.

How could you know since you don't accept anything but actual direct measurements?

By the way...have you noticed that there are no other warmers on this thread? Generally they gather like magpies hurling their beliefs at the science that us skeptics are producing. You are so wrong, on everything you say, that even the hard core crazies aren't coming to help you out. That is bad when the real nut case global warmers don't want to be associated with you because even they aren't prepared to help defend you.

You do have my sympathy...to be so wrong.....on everything is truly tragic. The educational system really let you down.

 

[Frannie]

That is idiotic.

It is NOT supposed to be warming now.
We are past the ice age by 20,000 years, it had already reached the warming peak, and it is now supposed to be cooling again. And that is what was happening until about 40 years ago.

You clearly know nothing about earth's history, climate, or anything related to this subject.

And ice age cycles are 120 thousand years long.
The cycles were are forcing, are more like 200 years long for the same range of change.

Tell me, by what metric do you say it is "supposed" to be doing anything. all the temperature reconstructions show that our climate is chaotic with warming and cooling periods happening at seemingly random intervals between glaciations...

You seem to just be making it up as you go because you certainly aren't showing anything like actual science to back up your claims.

Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.
It is only weather that is chaotic, not climate.
Climate can NOT be chaotic.
The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.

I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented. There can be chaotic influences on climate and weather, but there are none now except for humans adding over 5 trillion tons of sequestered carbon into the air every single year.

The climate chaotic. The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.

That is not at all true.
Night is completely different from day, but it is not at all chaotic. Change that is regular and predictable cycles is not chaotic. Things that influence climate are not at all chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, but climate is not at all chaotic, unless something additional is added, like a comet strike or humans burning billions of tons of additional carbon a year. Humans and comets are chaotic, not normal climate influences.

Regardless of what you believe, science itself says that the earth's climate is chaotic. The IPCC defines the climate as a coupled, chaotic, non linear system. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you still haven't provided the first piece of actual science to support anything that you have said.

But the question is, do we have the right to tell him that his God is not real?

 

[Frannie]

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying. Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.

Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica. If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old

 

[SSDD]

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice vcd that is millions of years old

I don't think he "thinks" at all. I believe he just listens to the voices in his head and repeats whatever they say.

 

[SSDD]

Tell me, by what metric do you say it is "supposed" to be doing anything. all the temperature reconstructions show that our climate is chaotic with warming and cooling periods happening at seemingly random intervals between glaciations...

You seem to just be making it up as you go because you certainly aren't showing anything like actual science to back up your claims.

Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.
It is only weather that is chaotic, not climate.
Climate can NOT be chaotic.
The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.

I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented. There can be chaotic influences on climate and weather, but there are none now except for humans adding over 5 trillion tons of sequestered carbon into the air every single year.

The climate chaotic. The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.

That is not at all true.
Night is completely different from day, but it is not at all chaotic. Change that is regular and predictable cycles is not chaotic. Things that influence climate are not at all chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, but climate is not at all chaotic, unless something additional is added, like a comet strike or humans burning billions of tons of additional carbon a year. Humans and comets are chaotic, not normal climate influences.

Regardless of what you believe, science itself says that the earth's climate is chaotic. The IPCC defines the climate as a coupled, chaotic, non linear system. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you still haven't provided the first piece of actual science to support anything that you have said.

But the question is, do we have the right to tell him that his God is not real?

Since he can't produce any evidence to support his claims, by his own admission whatever he believes isn't real. If you believe a thing, you should be able to provide evidence of it.....or be prepared to admit that your belief is a matter of faith...

 

[Frannie]

Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.
It is only weather that is chaotic, not climate.
Climate can NOT be chaotic.
The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.

I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented. There can be chaotic influences on climate and weather, but there are none now except for humans adding over 5 trillion tons of sequestered carbon into the air every single year.

The climate chaotic. The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.

That is not at all true.
Night is completely different from day, but it is not at all chaotic. Change that is regular and predictable cycles is not chaotic. Things that influence climate are not at all chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, but climate is not at all chaotic, unless something additional is added, like a comet strike or humans burning billions of tons of additional carbon a year. Humans and comets are chaotic, not normal climate influences.

Regardless of what you believe, science itself says that the earth's climate is chaotic. The IPCC defines the climate as a coupled, chaotic, non linear system. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you still haven't provided the first piece of actual science to support anything that you have said.

But the question is, do we have the right to tell him that his God is not real?

Since he can't produce any evidence to support his claims, by his own admission whatever he believes isn't real. If you believe a thing, you should be able to provide evidence of it.....or be prepared to admit that your belief is a matter of faith...

It's not just him, no one can present any evidence and now the so called scientist are actually predicting cooling that is normal with the solar minimum

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

 

[Frannie]

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice vcd that is millions of years old

I don't think he "thinks" at all. I believe he just listens to the voices in his head and repeats whatever they say.

He repeats the chants of his religion which was just killed by NASA

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.

2) Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.

3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?

Not even a link to some bullshit right wing website?

Pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OOHPOOPAHDOO was doing satire.
The argument as deliberately pathetic, generalized, and without any link or substance.

Shhh! What are you trying to do, take all the fun out of it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You can not talk sense to a religious zealot

Bingo!

 

[RealDave]

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying. Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.

Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica. If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old

Ice cores have b[n=been pulled that are 1.5 million years old.

 

[Frannie]

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying. Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.

Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica. If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old

Ice cores have b[n=been pulled that are 1.5 million years old.[/QUOTE]
Lol, not from sea ice simpleton

You demonstrate complete ignorance

 

[Lesh]

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying. Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.

Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica. If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old

Ice cores have b[n=been pulled that are 1.5 million years old.[/QUOTE]
Lol, not from sea ice simpleton

You demonstrate complete ignorance

WTF are you even talking about?

 

[Frannie]

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying. Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.

Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica. If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old

Ice cores have b[n=been pulled that are 1.5 million years old.[/QUOTE]
Lol, not from sea ice simpleton

You demonstrate complete ignorance

WTF are you even talking about?

I am discussing reality, something that the fools who believe in AGW will never be able to comprehend.

You and your idiot friend believe that sea ice yields million year core samples. It does not, but since this as stated is connected to reality you will not know what I am talking about.

When science predicts a new ice age, AGW is dead, as I have always said
NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

 

[Lesh]

Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying. Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.

Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica. If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old

Ice cores have b[n=been pulled that are 1.5 million years old.[/QUOTE]
Lol, not from sea ice simpleton

You demonstrate complete ignorance

WTF are you even talking about?

I am discussing reality, something that the fools who believe in AGW will never be able to comprehend.

You and your idiot friend believe that sea ice yields million year core samples. It does not, but since this as stated is connected to reality you will not know what I am talking about.

When science predicts a new ice age, AGW is dead, as I have always said
NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Hey dumfuk... no one said that sea ice does anything of the sort.
Again, WTF do you think you are talking about?

 

[Frannie]

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old

Ice cores have b[n=been pulled that are 1.5 million years old.[/QUOTE]
Lol, not from sea ice simpleton

You demonstrate complete ignorance

WTF are you even talking about?

I am discussing reality, something that the fools who believe in AGW will never be able to comprehend.

You and your idiot friend believe that sea ice yields million year core samples. It does not, but since this as stated is connected to reality you will not know what I am talking about.

When science predicts a new ice age, AGW is dead, as I have always said
NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Hey dumfuk... no one said that sea ice does anything of the sort.
Again, WTF do you think you are talking about?

Lol, NASA is doing the talking not me. I am sorry that NASA just killed your religion, but that's life

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Bye the way, you do have the right to be angry, but not at me as I told you the truth......

 

[Sunsettommy]

There were no e-mails defrauding the science of climate change.

CO2 PPM graph:

Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph

Exactly.
Case closed.
It is impossible for that nearly 40% CO2 increase to not cause AGW.
We know CO2 has to cause warming, and we know that burning all that fossil fuel adds over 5 trillion tons of carbon a year, to the atmosphere.
And we know it is accumulative, as CO2 is stable and only taken out by things like plants or carbonization of fresh silicate magma.

Your 5 Trillion a year claim is absurd, try using real data next time, by the way Carbon is NOT Carbon Dioxide.

C per year emissions for year 2015 was about 10 GtC

You are not even close, not even in the same solar system.

CO2 is a trace gas with a trace spectral absorption range, competing with the far more abundant Water Vapor in its main bandwidth, which is mostly OUTSIDE the main terrestrial IR L:W outflow, meaning CO2 absorbs little of the IR outflow to space.