Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[SSDD]

Okay deniers, disprove this from NASA.

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade."

News | Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise

Ok...first that is about antarctica...not greenland...second, note that they say that West Antarctica is where the biggest changes are happening. It is true, West Antarctica is loosing a good deal of ice. I don't guess you know what the article didn't tell you about the ice loss in West Antarctica do you? They sure won't tell you...that article is designed to make you think we are somehow responsible... They didn't bother to tell you that they have discovered some 91 active volcanoes both under the ice and on the sea bed around West Antarctica.

What does it feel like to be a dupe? What does it feel like when the people you though you could trust leave out a piece of information that important? How does it feel to know that you have been taken advantage of...they let you believe that we were responsible some how for that ice loss and it is actually damned near 100 volcanoes under the ice and on the ocean floor around West Antarctica?

Yeah dupe, I feel for you. The scientists who discovered the volcanoes have an answer for you. They don't support your ignorant assertion that those volcanoes are causing the ice to melt. They do give a reason and can you post it for the thread to see.

Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet

You don't think volcanoes under the ice, and on the ocean floor under the sea ice will make ice melt? You really think molten lava won't melt ice? Are you that f'ing stupid?

Can't be very active to allow the Antarctic ice sheet to form over the top of them.

Didn't even bother to look did you? Just decided on your own to just make some crap up... The fact is that they are active... the ice is 2 and a half miles thick...even volcanoes can't melt that much ice very quickly....

 

[otto105]

NOAA says there is.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

You keep showing evidence that the climate is changing...who is disputing that? What you aren't showing is evidence that we are the cause...you show evidence that the climate is changing with nothing but an assumption that we must be the cause....That isn't evidence of anything more than that you apparently don't know what evidence that we were causing the change looks like. Your NCEI graph is pretty and all, and they tell you that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature...and then they expect that you will be to ignorant to actually look at the graph and see that what it shows is that increased CO2 follows warming....every ice core ever done shows that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause... What is it like to be a useful idiot?

It's determined by process of elimination. Solar and volcanic forcings don't account for the dramatic increase in temperature we've seen in the 20th century. That leaves human caused greenhouse gas as the culprit. If you think it's caused by something else, what is it.

So lets see a published paper that makes that claim....all the actual published papers that I have ever seen say just the opposite...

Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that:

1. Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years.
2. Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960.
3. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.
   
   Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

What about this graph from the GISP2 Ice Cores.

 

[SSDD]

An actual CO2 garph.

And that is fakery as well...you don't attach instrumental readings to proxy reconstructions...it is fraud and there is no other word for it...and do tell me, what do you think it proves anyway other than that as the earth has warmed, the processes by which the earth produces CO2 have become more efficient?

Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.

It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.

 

[Cosmos]

NOAA says there is.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

You keep showing evidence that the climate is changing...who is disputing that? What you aren't showing is evidence that we are the cause...you show evidence that the climate is changing with nothing but an assumption that we must be the cause....That isn't evidence of anything more than that you apparently don't know what evidence that we were causing the change looks like. Your NCEI graph is pretty and all, and they tell you that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature...and then they expect that you will be to ignorant to actually look at the graph and see that what it shows is that increased CO2 follows warming....every ice core ever done shows that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause... What is it like to be a useful idiot?

It's determined by process of elimination. Solar and volcanic forcings don't account for the dramatic increase in temperature we've seen in the 20th century. That leaves human caused greenhouse gas as the culprit. If you think it's caused by something else, what is it.

So lets see a published paper that makes that claim....all the actual published papers that I have ever seen say just the opposite...

Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that:

1. Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years.
2. Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960.
3. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.
   
   Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

The alarming part is the increase in the last 50 years which is about double what it was for the last 100 years. I attribute that to China and India.

 

[otto105]

Okay deniers, disprove this from NASA.

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade."

News | Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise

Ok...first that is about antarctica...not greenland...second, note that they say that West Antarctica is where the biggest changes are happening. It is true, West Antarctica is loosing a good deal of ice. I don't guess you know what the article didn't tell you about the ice loss in West Antarctica do you? They sure won't tell you...that article is designed to make you think we are somehow responsible... They didn't bother to tell you that they have discovered some 91 active volcanoes both under the ice and on the sea bed around West Antarctica.

What does it feel like to be a dupe? What does it feel like when the people you though you could trust leave out a piece of information that important? How does it feel to know that you have been taken advantage of...they let you believe that we were responsible some how for that ice loss and it is actually damned near 100 volcanoes under the ice and on the ocean floor around West Antarctica?

Yeah dupe, I feel for you. The scientists who discovered the volcanoes have an answer for you. They don't support your ignorant assertion that those volcanoes are causing the ice to melt. They do give a reason and can you post it for the thread to see.

Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet

You don't think volcanoes under the ice, and on the ocean floor under the sea ice will make ice melt? You really think molten lava won't melt ice? Are you that f'ing stupid?

Can't be very active to allow the Antarctic ice sheet to form over the top of them.

Didn't even bother to look did you? Just decided on your own to just make some crap up... The fact is that they are active... the ice is 2 and a half miles thick...even volcanoes can't melt that much ice very quickly....

Excerpt from article (which shows you can't read.)

The discovery is particularly important because the activity of these volcanoes could have crucial implications for the rest of the planet. If one erupts, it could further destabilise some of the region’s ice sheets, which have already been affected by global warming. Meltwater outflows into the Antarctic ocean could trigger sea level rises. “We just don’t know about how active these volcanoes have been in the past,” Bingham said.

However, he pointed to one alarming trend: “The most volcanism that is going in the world at present is in regions that have only recently lost their glacier covering – after the end of the last ice age. These places include Iceland and Alaska.

“Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on top of them, there is a release of pressure on the regions’ volcanoes and they become more active.”

And this could happen in west Antarctica, where significant warming in the region caused by climate change has begun to affect its ice sheets. If they are reduced significantly, this could release pressure on the volcanoes that lie below and lead to eruptions that could further destabilise the ice sheets and enhance sea level rises that are already affecting our oceans.



So yeah, we have that.

And this could happen in west Antarctica, where significant warming in the region caused by climate change has begun to affect its ice sheets. If they are reduced significantly, this could release pressure on the volcanoes that lie below and lead to eruptions that could further destabilise the ice sheets and enhance sea level rises that are already affecting our oceans.

 

[SSDD]

You keep showing evidence that the climate is changing...who is disputing that? What you aren't showing is evidence that we are the cause...you show evidence that the climate is changing with nothing but an assumption that we must be the cause....That isn't evidence of anything more than that you apparently don't know what evidence that we were causing the change looks like. Your NCEI graph is pretty and all, and they tell you that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature...and then they expect that you will be to ignorant to actually look at the graph and see that what it shows is that increased CO2 follows warming....every ice core ever done shows that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause... What is it like to be a useful idiot?

It's determined by process of elimination. Solar and volcanic forcings don't account for the dramatic increase in temperature we've seen in the 20th century. That leaves human caused greenhouse gas as the culprit. If you think it's caused by something else, what is it.

So lets see a published paper that makes that claim....all the actual published papers that I have ever seen say just the opposite...

Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that:

1. Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years.
2. Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960.
3. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.
   
   Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

What about this graph from the GISP2 Ice Cores.

Note that that graph only looks at 2000 ..back to the roman warming period, and it is smoothed...the graph below shows the same thing for the past 2000 years...and if you follow it on back, you see that it was warmer and warmer.. Geez guy, learn to read a simple graph.

 

[Cosmos]

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

 

[otto105]

An actual CO2 garph.

And that is fakery as well...you don't attach instrumental readings to proxy reconstructions...it is fraud and there is no other word for it...and do tell me, what do you think it proves anyway other than that as the earth has warmed, the processes by which the earth produces CO2 have become more efficient?

Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.

It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.

The only fraud here is you.

Are we at 412+ PPM of CO2 or not?

 

[SSDD]

You keep showing evidence that the climate is changing...who is disputing that? What you aren't showing is evidence that we are the cause...you show evidence that the climate is changing with nothing but an assumption that we must be the cause....That isn't evidence of anything more than that you apparently don't know what evidence that we were causing the change looks like. Your NCEI graph is pretty and all, and they tell you that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature...and then they expect that you will be to ignorant to actually look at the graph and see that what it shows is that increased CO2 follows warming....every ice core ever done shows that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause... What is it like to be a useful idiot?

It's determined by process of elimination. Solar and volcanic forcings don't account for the dramatic increase in temperature we've seen in the 20th century. That leaves human caused greenhouse gas as the culprit. If you think it's caused by something else, what is it.

So lets see a published paper that makes that claim....all the actual published papers that I have ever seen say just the opposite...

Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that:

1. Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years.
2. Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960.
3. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.
   
   Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

The alarming part is the increase in the last 50 years which is about double what it was for the last 100 years. I attribute that to China and India.

And that is alarming how? As you can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core, the change we have seen in the past 50 years is insignificant compared to some of the changes that have happened over the past 10,000 years...both warmer and cooler...what we have seen is in no way unusual, and actually very small compared to some of the changes over the past 10,000 years.

 

[SSDD]

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

 

[Cosmos]

It's determined by process of elimination. Solar and volcanic forcings don't account for the dramatic increase in temperature we've seen in the 20th century. That leaves human caused greenhouse gas as the culprit. If you think it's caused by something else, what is it.

So lets see a published paper that makes that claim....all the actual published papers that I have ever seen say just the opposite...

Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that:

1. Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years.
2. Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960.
3. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.
   
   Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

What about this graph from the GISP2 Ice Cores.

Note that that graph only looks at 2000 ..back to the roman warming period, and it is smoothed...the graph below shows the same thing for the past 2000 years...and if you follow it on back, you see that it was warmer and warmer.. Geez guy, learn to read a simple graph.

What's dramatic about the 20th century is a CO2 concentration that has rapidly increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm. And that is undeniably caused by humans.

 

[Cosmos]

It's determined by process of elimination. Solar and volcanic forcings don't account for the dramatic increase in temperature we've seen in the 20th century. That leaves human caused greenhouse gas as the culprit. If you think it's caused by something else, what is it.

So lets see a published paper that makes that claim....all the actual published papers that I have ever seen say just the opposite...

Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that:

1. Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years.
2. Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960.
3. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.
   
   Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

The alarming part is the increase in the last 50 years which is about double what it was for the last 100 years. I attribute that to China and India.

And that is alarming how? As you can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core, the change we have seen in the past 50 years is insignificant compared to some of the changes that have happened over the past 10,000 years...both warmer and cooler...what we have seen is in no way unusual, and actually very small compared to some of the changes over the past 10,000 years.

So you're ok with having the same climatic conditions as the Roman Warming? How about the Jurassic? What would be the impact on our economy with a 20 ft sea level rise?

 

[Cosmos]

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

 

[SSDD]

An actual CO2 garph.

And that is fakery as well...you don't attach instrumental readings to proxy reconstructions...it is fraud and there is no other word for it...and do tell me, what do you think it proves anyway other than that as the earth has warmed, the processes by which the earth produces CO2 have become more efficient?

Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.

It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.

The only fraud here is you.

Are we at 412+ PPM of CO2 or not?

Yes...we are...but what do you think that proves? When the ice age that the earth is presently coming out of began, CO2 was at about 1000ppm. Imagine that...an ice age starting with CO2 at 1000ppm, And if you go further back in history you will see ice ages beginning with CO2 levels higher than that. What does that say about your greenhouse hypothesis,.

 

[Cosmos]

An actual CO2 garph.

And that is fakery as well...you don't attach instrumental readings to proxy reconstructions...it is fraud and there is no other word for it...and do tell me, what do you think it proves anyway other than that as the earth has warmed, the processes by which the earth produces CO2 have become more efficient?

Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.

It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.

The only fraud here is you.

Are we at 412+ PPM of CO2 or not?

Yes...we are...but what do you think that proves? When the ice age that the earth is presently coming out of began, CO2 was at about 1000ppm. Imagine that...an ice age starting with CO2 at 1000ppm, And if you go further back in history you will see ice ages beginning with CO2 levels higher than that. What does that say about your greenhouse hypothesis,.

It means that variations in the amount of energy received from the sun due to the wobble of the earth's orbit are large enough to trigger or end ice ages. You think that's what started happening in 1970? Prove it.

 

[otto105]

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

 

[otto105]

An actual CO2 garph.

And that is fakery as well...you don't attach instrumental readings to proxy reconstructions...it is fraud and there is no other word for it...and do tell me, what do you think it proves anyway other than that as the earth has warmed, the processes by which the earth produces CO2 have become more efficient?

Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.

It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.

The only fraud here is you.

Are we at 412+ PPM of CO2 or not?

Yes...we are...but what do you think that proves? When the ice age that the earth is presently coming out of began, CO2 was at about 1000ppm. Imagine that...an ice age starting with CO2 at 1000ppm, And if you go further back in history you will see ice ages beginning with CO2 levels higher than that. What does that say about your greenhouse hypothesis,.

We came out of the last ice age about 11,000 years ago, so where on the graph is 1000ppm of CO2?

 

[SSDD]

So lets see a published paper that makes that claim....all the actual published papers that I have ever seen say just the opposite...

Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that:

1. Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years.
2. Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960.
3. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.
   
   Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

The alarming part is the increase in the last 50 years which is about double what it was for the last 100 years. I attribute that to China and India.

And that is alarming how? As you can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core, the change we have seen in the past 50 years is insignificant compared to some of the changes that have happened over the past 10,000 years...both warmer and cooler...what we have seen is in no way unusual, and actually very small compared to some of the changes over the past 10,000 years.

So you're ok with having the same climatic conditions as the Roman Warming? How about the Jurassic? What would be the impact on our economy with a 20 ft sea level rise?

20 feet? Let see....20 feet that is about 6,096 mm. Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...at that rate, we will have 20 feet of sea level rise by about the year 4050...hysterical, handwaving, hyperventilating alarmist much?

 

[Cosmos]

Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that:

1. Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years.
2. Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960.
3. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.
   
   Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

The alarming part is the increase in the last 50 years which is about double what it was for the last 100 years. I attribute that to China and India.

And that is alarming how? As you can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core, the change we have seen in the past 50 years is insignificant compared to some of the changes that have happened over the past 10,000 years...both warmer and cooler...what we have seen is in no way unusual, and actually very small compared to some of the changes over the past 10,000 years.

So you're ok with having the same climatic conditions as the Roman Warming? How about the Jurassic? What would be the impact on our economy with a 20 ft sea level rise?

20 feet? Let see....20 feet that is about 6,096 mm. Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...at that rate, we will have 20 feet of sea level rise by about the year 4050...hysterical, handwaving, hyperventilating alarmist much?

Did you get that from your bullshit climate model?

 

[SSDD]

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.