The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[Wuwei]

I don't know where you got it, but for the sake of argument, I can believe that.

Edit: Oops, that represents the last 800,000 years. Do you mean the other graph?

 

[mamooth]

Lol. Yes I already knew this. Why did the ice age end? Why was there a saw tooth behavior on both sides of the cycles?

But there's not. You've got that graph-reading problem again, not to mention the severe scale-confusion. The rise comes much faster than the decline. The rise ended around 6000-8000 years ago.

We know what the natural cycle should be now, a slow cooling into the next ice age. It was slowly cooling, until around 1970. At that point, the contribution from greenhouse gases overwhelmed the natural cycle caused cooling, and temperatures started rising sharply. Being we just cancelled the next ice age, it's senseless to claim we're still in the natural ice age cycle.

By the way, that graph you're using is from a single ice core from one location. You're comparing it to a global average temperature. Apples and oranges, invalid.

And again, the directly measured evidence says the current warming is not natural. If the warming was natural, we'd see stratospheric warming. Instead, we see stratospheric cooling. We also see an increase in backradation and decrease in outgoing longwave that would not happen if it was a natural cycle. Hence, it's not a natural cycle.

 

[ding]

Lol. Yes I already knew this. Why did the ice age end? Why was there a saw tooth behavior on both sides of the cycles?

But there's not. You've got that graph-reading problem again, not to mention the severe scale-confusion. The rise comes much faster than the decline. The rise ended around 6000-8000 years ago.

We know what the natural cycle should be now, a slow cooling into the next ice age. It was slowly cooling, until around 1970. At that point, the contribution from greenhouse gases overwhelmed the natural cycle caused cooling, and temperatures started rising sharply. Being we just cancelled the next ice age, it's senseless to claim we're still in the natural ice age cycle.

By the way, that graph you're using is from a single ice core from one location. You're comparing it to a global average temperature. Apples and oranges, invalid.

And again, the directly measured evidence says the current warming is not natural. If the warming was natural, we'd see stratospheric warming. Instead, we see stratospheric cooling. We also see an increase in backradation and decrease in outgoing longwave that would not happen if it was a natural cycle. Hence, it's not a natural cycle.

You are arguing with data from NASA. The last 1500 years is included in the 2nd graph.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

 

[mamooth]

Do you believe this curve contains the temperature data for the last 1500 years?

Obviously not. It's an ice core graph, so it does not contain around a century of data, being that it takes time on that scale for the ice to become airtight. Year 0 on that graph is around 100 years ago.

And again, it's an ice core, therefore it only shows a single spot on the planet.

 

[ding]

Do you believe this curve contains the temperature data for the last 1500 years?

Obviously not. It's an ice core graph, so it does not contain around a century of data, being that it takes time on that scale for the ice to become airtight. Year 0 on that graph is around 100 years ago.

And again, it's an ice core, therefore it only shows a single spot on the planet.

Obviously it is. You can see the decline and the incline. They are both at the correct AGT. You are arguing with NASA data.

 

[ding]

Look at the AGT

 

[mamooth]

You are arguing with data from NASA.

No, I'm pointing out your weird claims are unsupported by the NASA data. On the next page from your graph, NASA says this.

Global Warming : Feature Articles
---
These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.
---

NASA says you're totally wrong, and they say it directly, so don't try to snow us with the "NASA supports me!" nonsense.

 

[ding]

You are arguing with data from NASA.

No, I'm pointing out your weird claims are unsupported by the NASA data. On the next page from your graph, NASA says this.

Global Warming : Feature Articles
---
These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.
---

NASA says you're totally wrong, and they say it directly, so don't try to snow us with the "NASA supports me!" nonsense.

The data NASA posted show similar slopes, so I do not know what data they are basing that statement upon because the data they posted does not show slopes that are any different than previous interglacial cycles. Furthermore, the same saw tooth behavior is seen in past interglacial cycles and they have similar temperature ranges.

 

[mamooth]

Obviously it is. You can see the decline and the incline. They are both at the correct AGT. You are arguing with NASA data.

Simply denying that ice cores don't contain any data from recent years isn't going to make that inconvenient fact go away. That graph does _not_ contain the last 1500 years, period.

Look at the AGT

America's Got Talent?

Oh, average global temperature. Again, your graph doesn't show that. It shows the temperature at a single ice core location.

 

[ding]

Obviously it is. You can see the decline and the incline. They are both at the correct AGT. You are arguing with NASA data.

Simply denying that ice cores don't contain any data from recent years isn't going to make that inconvenient fact go away. That graph does _not_ contain the last 1500 years, period.

Look at the AGT

America's Got Talent?

Oh, average global temperature. Again, your graph doesn't show that. It shows the temperature at a single ice core location.

They aren't my graphs. They are NASA's graphs. The AGT's are the same on each curve for the last 1500 years. The last 1500 years is included in both plots. Stop crapping your pants over nothing.

 

[mamooth]

The data NASA posted show similar slopes, so I do not know what data they are basing that statement upon because the data they posted does not show slopes that are any different than previous interglacial cycles.

Unlike you, NASA doesn't base their conclusions entirely on a single graph from a single location that leaves out all the data from near the present time.

Furthermore, the same saw tooth behavior is seen in past interglacial cycles and they have similar temperature ranges.

So?

That's a logical fallacy on our part. You're claiming climate must always act exactly like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. Rest assured that actual scientists instantly recognize your fallacy, and the complete failure of the conclusions that you derive from it.

 

[ding]

The data NASA posted show similar slopes, so I do not know what data they are basing that statement upon because the data they posted does not show slopes that are any different than previous interglacial cycles.

Unlike you, NASA doesn't base their conclusions entirely on a single graph from a single location that leaves out all the data from near the present time.

Furthermore, the same saw tooth behavior is seen in past interglacial cycles and they have similar temperature ranges.

So?

That's a logical fallacy on our part. You're claiming climate must always act exactly like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. Rest assured that actual scientists instantly recognize your fallacy, and the complete failure of the conclusions that you derive from it.

NASA was talking about CO2 and not temperature. They made a mistake. How do I know? Because the data they showed does not match the statement they made, but it is a correct statement for CO2.

 

[ding]

That's a logical fallacy on our part. You're claiming climate must always act exactly like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. Rest assured that actual scientists instantly recognize your fallacy, and the complete failure of the conclusions that you derive from it.

Don't be silly. No, not always, but the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles still exists and the trend is still continuing.

 

[mamooth]

They aren't my graphs. They are NASA's graphs.

And we're pointing out that you clearly have no idea of what those graphs mean.

The AGT's are the same on each curve for the last 1500 years.

Totally wrong, being how the ice core graph doesn't include recent years. NASA knows that. I keep telling you that. Why do you keep pretending not to understand? It's not complicated.

The last 1500 years is included in both plots. Stop crapping your pants over nothing.

Let's go over some of your colossal logical blunders.

You claim an ice core graph contains data from recent years.

You claim an ice core graph from one spot represents the entire planet.

You claim the present has to behave exactly like the past, no matter how conditions are different in the present.

You ignore the time scale differences in the plots, which would make the current rise invisible on your long-scale graph.

You deliberately ignore the directly measured physical evidence that shows the warming is not part of a natural cycle.

And you claim NASA is totally wrong because they didn't hilariously misinterpret the data like you do.

Conclusion: A bright fourth grader does much better science than you.

 

[mamooth]

Don't be silly. No, not always, but the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles still exists and the trend is still continuing.

Given that the slow cooling trend of the glacial cycle turned into fast warming around 1970, planet earth says you're claiming the exact opposite of reality.

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. No, not always, but the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles still exists and the trend is still continuing.

Given that the slow cooling trend of the glacial cycle turned into fast warming around 1970, planet earth says you're claiming the exact opposite of reality.

I don't believe I am.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't believe I am.

Posting the same topic on the Arctic heat site. I will abandon this thread and use the other thread.

 

[ding]

I don't believe I am.

Posting the same topic on the Arctic heat site. I will abandon this thread and use the other thread.

Probably because it is a critical point and has drawn so much attention.

 

[jillian]

Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
predictable of crazy Cali...

California regulates cow farts

If only you wackos had the slightest knowledge information and understanding of science.

But thanks for minimizing the issue with your usual nonsense.

 

[SSDD]

For your information, we are still wondering why...we know that they do, but remain in the dark as to why....at present, we just have stories that act as place holders till such time as we can actually see...and then the stories can be replaced with what is actually happening.

If the hard sciences have a "Why" question scientists will be satisfied by an impeccable mathematical model. The current story of electromagnetic and atomic theory is accurate to at least one part per billion, the limit of observation. If a new theory supplants the current theory, it will still be in the form of a mathematical model, and your "Why" question would be no different than it is today.

Pure fantasy.....you aren't supposed to actually believe the place holding stories....but then, since you buy AGW, you clearly will believe anything.