Aliens Caused Global Warming - Scientific Consensus

[Sandvol]

No biters? Alright, I’ll explain.

The first layer of fail is that the GISP2 data is from one ice core at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (high latitude, high altitude), so it isn’t remotely representative of average global temperature. That’s like checking the thermometer in your backyard and claiming to know the temperature everywhere.

Then GISP2 ends in 1854 where it’s nonchalantly spliced with HADCRUT3 global temps. Without noting it that’s deceiving in and of itself, but even then the HADCRUT3 data were misrepresented. We’ve seen temps rise ~ 1 C since 1854 but your plot shows maybe half of that.

Anyway, if they wanted to show a plot of local temperatures in Greenland they could have spliced it with, you know, temperature data from Greenland?

And the CO2 plot is from the EPICA Ice Dome C ice core, which is in Antarctica, not Greenland. I could make the same argument about cherry-picking one location but since the atmosphere is fairly well-mixed I’ll let that slide. What you should notice though is that this data set ends in 1777. Heck, if we're going to add the modern temperature data should we not also be adding the modern CO2 data?

And there you have it. Another funny thing about comparing data from Greenland with data from Antarctica is that their temperatures are anti-correlated. Here we have global average temperature from a multi-proxy reconstruction (Vostok is shown in Dark Blue, GISP2 in light blue):

Note that the average global temperature today is hotter than any time in the holocene. If you look closely you'll see that Vostok and GISP2 temps are indeed anti-correlated. That means their average will have far fewer and smaller fluctuations then either separately. The rapid rises and declines in the Greenland ice core during the holocene are not global events, but the equivalently precipitous rise in 20th century temperatures is.

So what have we learned? Denialists are not at all interested in furthering their knowledge. They only want to sift the information provided by real scientists and pick out bits and pieces they can misuse to further their political ends. Tsk tsk. There goes your cookie.

I must say Bart the more I read your rebuttal the worse it gets. Although most of your rebuttals which aren't really rebuttals are poor this one is really piss poor.

 

[Sandvol]

Specifically, what is wrong with my version of your graph?

When were CO2 levels "much higher"?

First, today's temperature is not higher than the Medieval Warming Period and today's CO2 level is much higher than during the last interglacial with a lower temperature. Why?

 

[Sandvol]

No biters? Alright, I’ll explain.

The first layer of fail is that the GISP2 data is from one ice core at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (high latitude, high altitude), so it isn’t remotely representative of average global temperature. That’s like checking the thermometer in your backyard and claiming to know the temperature everywhere.

Then GISP2 ends in 1854 where it’s nonchalantly spliced with HADCRUT3 global temps. Without noting it that’s deceiving in and of itself, but even then the HADCRUT3 data were misrepresented. We’ve seen temps rise ~ 1 C since 1854 but your plot shows maybe half of that.

Anyway, if they wanted to show a plot of local temperatures in Greenland they could have spliced it with, you know, temperature data from Greenland?

And the CO2 plot is from the EPICA Ice Dome C ice core, which is in Antarctica, not Greenland. I could make the same argument about cherry-picking one location but since the atmosphere is fairly well-mixed I’ll let that slide. What you should notice though is that this data set ends in 1777. Heck, if we're going to add the modern temperature data should we not also be adding the modern CO2 data?

And there you have it. Another funny thing about comparing data from Greenland with data from Antarctica is that their temperatures are anti-correlated. Here we have global average temperature from a multi-proxy reconstruction (Vostok is shown in Dark Blue, GISP2 in light blue):

Note that the average global temperature today is hotter than any time in the holocene. If you look closely you'll see that Vostok and GISP2 temps are indeed anti-correlated. That means their average will have far fewer and smaller fluctuations then either separately. The rapid rises and declines in the Greenland ice core during the holocene are not global events, but the equivalently precipitous rise in 20th century temperatures is.

So what have we learned? Denialists are not at all interested in furthering their knowledge. They only want to sift the information provided by real scientists and pick out bits and pieces they can misuse to further their political ends. Tsk tsk. There goes your cookie.

Source? Source? Source? What a jumbled piece of crap. Even most unethical climate scientists wouldn't publish that piece of crap.

 

[Sandvol]

Aw c’mon TRUT, I wasn’t being that mean. I know you want to keep arguing

It basically comes down to this:

If the “pause” actually continues for another 10 years, I would readily admit the models are defunct.

If the “pause” is just short-term variation, and the long-term trend 10 years from now turns out to be exactly what the models predicted, you still won’t accept that they’re right. Not until 2050, which IMO is an incredibly arbitrary and rather silly requirement. And possibly deadly. Even Sandvol only asks for 10 more years of observation.

We might get another El Nino spike but it won't be as high as the last and there is definitely significant evidence of a trend change.

 

[BartW]

I must say Bart the more I read your rebuttal the worse it gets. Although most of your rebuttals which aren't really rebuttals are poor this one is really piss poor.

First, today's temperature is not higher than the Medieval Warming Period and today's CO2 level is much higher than during the last interglacial with a lower temperature. Why?

Today's temperature is higher than the MWP both in Greenland and globally. In the last interglacial there weren’t people emitting 30 gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. CO2 rose and fell as a feedback from temperature variation due to orbital forcings (Milankovitch cycles).

Source? Source? Source? What a jumbled piece of crap. Even most unethical climate scientists wouldn't publish that piece of crap.

Lmao there’s a link in the post. There have been dozens of multi-proxy temperature reconstructions confirming Mann’s result since the original hockey-stick. Here’s another:

 

[Sandvol]

Today's temperature is higher than the MWP both in Greenland and globally. In the last interglacial there weren’t people emitting 30 gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. CO2 rose and fell as a feedback from temperature variation due to orbital forcings (Milankovitch cycles).

Lmao there’s a link in the post. There have been dozens of multi-proxy temperature reconstructions confirming Mann’s result since the original hockey-stick. Here’s another:

No, today's temperature is lower or only equal to MWP and Wiki is your source? I'm LMAO, why is the temperature higher during the last interglacial when the CO2 was lower?

P.S.-I'm really LMAO that piece of crap meaningless Mann chart is always your fallback isn't it? When are you going to get it? That chart is fiction.

 

[FLVOL_79]

My science graph beats your science graph

 

[Sandvol]

Note that the average global temperature today is hotter than any time in the holocene. If you look closely you'll see that Vostok and GISP2 temps are indeed anti-correlated. That means their average will have far fewer and smaller fluctuations then either separately. The rapid rises and declines in the Greenland ice core during the holocene are not global events, but the equivalently precipitous rise in 20th century temperatures is.

Doofus, they're not anti-correlated they're out of phase on a decadal scale delay and they would be on anything but an interglacial scale. They're both independent data sets and wouldn't you say either can be correlated and representative of global air temperature Mr. Scientific?

 

[BartW]

No, today's temperature is lower or only equal to MWP and Wiki is your source? I'm LMAO, why is the temperature higher during the last interglacial when the CO2 was lower?

P.S.-I'm really LMAO that piece of crap meaningless Mann chart is always your fallback isn't it? When are you going to get it? That chart is fiction.

No, globally the MWP was cooler than today. The original works are cited. Temperature was higher during the Eemian due to orbital forcings, namely obliquity and precession. Also the ice sheets were smaller, sea level was ~5m higher, and our planet's albedo was lower.

You really think the Mann chart is fiction, even though it's been reproduced numerous times? Conspiracy theorist

Note that the average global temperature today is hotter than any time in the holocene. If you look closely you'll see that Vostok and GISP2 temps are indeed anti-correlated. That means their average will have far fewer and smaller fluctuations then either separately. The rapid rises and declines in the Greenland ice core during the holocene are not global events, but the equivalently precipitous rise in 20th century temperatures is.

Doofus, they're not anti-correlated they're out of phase on a decadal scale delay and they would be on anything but an interglacial scale. They're both independent data sets and wouldn't you say either can be correlated and representative of global air temperature Mr. Scientific?

No, one location does not represent a global temperature. That's why your plot splicing GISP2 with HADCRUT3 is pure denialist bullsh!ttery. Btw, remember how I said scientists don't like it when you misrepresent their work? I was right. Richard Alley doesn't approve of 'skeptics' abusing GISP2.

Stop digging before you get to China

 

[FLVOL_79]

Its 67 degrees in Orlando in April...Climate Change for the worse is BS!

 

[Sandvol]

No, globally the MWP was cooler than today. The original works are cited. Temperature was higher during the Eemian due to orbital forcings, namely obliquity and precession. Also the ice sheets were smaller, sea level was ~5m higher, and our planet's albedo was lower.

You really think the Mann chart is fiction, even though it's been reproduced numerous times? Conspiracy theorist


No, one location does not represent a global temperature. That's why your plot splicing GISP2 with HADCRUT3 is pure denialist bullsh!ttery. Btw, remember how I said scientists don't like it when you misrepresent their work? I was right. Richard Alley doesn't approve of 'skeptics' abusing GISP2.

Stop digging before you get to China

You're the one digging and you still haven't answered my question? The temperature during the Holocene is a couple of degrees cooler than the last interglacial but CO2 levels are much higher. Levels didn't exceed 290PPM according to ice core samples. Why?

 

[Sandvol]

No, globally the MWP was cooler than today. The original works are cited. Temperature was higher during the Eemian due to orbital forcings, namely obliquity and precession. Also the ice sheets were smaller, sea level was ~5m higher, and our planet's albedo was lower.

You really think the Mann chart is fiction, even though it's been reproduced numerous times? Conspiracy theorist


No, one location does not represent a global temperature. That's why your plot splicing GISP2 with HADCRUT3 is pure denialist bullsh!ttery. Btw, remember how I said scientists don't like it when you misrepresent their work? I was right. Richard Alley doesn't approve of 'skeptics' abusing GISP2.

Stop digging before you get to China

And, plotting those samples over time would be representative of global air temperatures. You sure don't mind using independent data sets.

 

[Sandvol]

Also, based on your forcing models temperature should be much, much higher now because of CO2 than during the earlier period in the Holocene and its not. Why?

 

[Sandvol]

No, globally the MWP was cooler than today. The original works are cited. Temperature was higher during the Eemian due to orbital forcings, namely obliquity and precession. Also the ice sheets were smaller, sea level was ~5m higher, and our planet's albedo was lower.

You really think the Mann chart is fiction, even though it's been reproduced numerous times? Conspiracy theorist


No, one location does not represent a global temperature. That's why your plot splicing GISP2 with HADCRUT3 is pure denialist bullsh!ttery. Btw, remember how I said scientists don't like it when you misrepresent their work? I was right. Richard Alley doesn't approve of 'skeptics' abusing GISP2.

Stop digging before you get to China

Also, you don't mind using Mann's or Drum's spliced charts do you?

 

[Sandvol]

Denialist! Denialist! That's a river in Egypt Mr. Alinsky, Jr.

 

[BartW]

Go home Sandvol you're drunk

 

[Sandvol]

No, globally the MWP was cooler than today. The original works are cited. Temperature was higher during the Eemian due to orbital forcings, namely obliquity and precession. Also the ice sheets were smaller, sea level was ~5m higher, and our planet's albedo was lower.

You really think the Mann chart is fiction, even though it's been reproduced numerous times? Conspiracy theorist


No, one location does not represent a global temperature. That's why your plot splicing GISP2 with HADCRUT3 is pure denialist bullsh!ttery. Btw, remember how I said scientists don't like it when you misrepresent their work? I was right. Richard Alley doesn't approve of 'skeptics' abusing GISP2.

Stop digging before you get to China

Also, thank God Dr. Alley has ethics. At least somebody from Penn State does.

P.S.-Don't blame him Bart he can't help what his data reveals.

 

[BartW]

How was China?

You're the one digging and you still haven't answered my question? The temperature during the Holocene is a couple of degrees cooler than the last interglacial but CO2 levels are much higher. Levels didn't exceed 290PPM according to ice core samples. Why?

I answered this in my last two posts. Eemian = last interglacial

And, plotting those samples over time would be representative of global air temperatures. You sure don't mind using independent data sets.

Local = /= Global

Also, based on your forcing models temperature should be much, much higher now because of CO2 than during the earlier period in the Holocene and its not. Why?

Humans have only been emitting GHGs for ~100 years out of an 11000+ years old Holocene. Earlier in the Holocene CO2 level was a feedback of natural (orbital) warming, now it’s driving climate change. You must still be really confused about the phase between T and CO2 or actually drunk

Also, you don't mind using Mann's or Drum's spliced charts do you?

What charts? It’s not wrong to splice data per se. The problem with your graph (well, one of the problems) is it presents temperature from Greenland as a global average. Earth doesn’t warm and cool uniformly.

Also, thank God Dr. Alley has ethics. At least somebody from Penn State does.
P.S.-Don't blame him Bart he can't help what his data reveals.

You must not have read the link. From Dr. Alley:

"First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru)… So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible."

 

[BartW]

Pope Francis urged to back fossil fuel divestment campaign
Letter from religious groups in Australia and North America says it is 'immoral' to profit from fossil fuels

opcorn:

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Pope Francis urged to back fossil fuel divestment campaign
Letter from religious groups in Australia and North America says it is 'immoral' to profit from fossil fuels

opcorn:

I guess it's 'immoral' to profit from the fast food industry too huh? lol:lol:

Fossil fuels will be around a LONG time after all of us are dead. There is nothing immoral about investing in fossil fuels.

 

[BartW]

I guess it's 'immoral' to profit from the fast food industry too huh? lol:lol:

Fossil fuels will be around a LONG time after all of us are dead. There is nothing immoral about investing in fossil fuels.

Fast food ain't ruining the planet... just America

 

[Sandvol]

How was China?


I answered this in my last two posts. Eemian = last interglacial

Local = /= Global

Humans have only been emitting GHGs for ~100 years out of an 11000+ years old Holocene. Earlier in the Holocene CO2 level was a feedback of natural (orbital) warming, now it’s driving climate change. You must still be really confused about the phase between T and CO2 or actually drunk

But, you still haven't answered what caused the temperature to be higher. You can't answer the question without admitting that CO2 does not drive temperature change. I think you're confused. Please no more non-sense about CO2 levels oscillating. They were lower than they are now and the temperature was higher.

What charts? It’s not wrong to splice data per se. The problem with your graph (well, one of the problems) is it presents temperature from Greenland as a global average. Earth doesn’t warm and cool uniformly.

The Earth doesn't warm and cool uniformly. Really? It's irrelevant in this context. The Greenland data is still approximately reflective of the global temperature change. You can't say we're going to research tree rings and ice core as an approximate for past temperature record and when it gives results you don't like claim global =/= local. Now that's Mannish. But typical.

You must not have read the link. From Dr. Alley:

"First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru)… So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible."

You must not understand. Dr. Alley's data has been published. So, he doesn't get to control who uses it or how it is used. And, I presented it exactly as he presented it. But, thank God it wasn't fudged data like Mann's. We still don't know what Mann's original data looked like. Claiming now that GISP2 data is not an approximate for global temperature especially in the context in which it is being used is nonsense. Your rebuttal is really lame.

 

[Sandvol]

"First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru)… So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible."

What a BS and irrelevant statement. He used anti-phased which is close to correct and you used anti-correlated which is a total lie and which doesn't even make sense.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Fast food ain't ruining the planet... just America

Oh Lord Bart you really do believe your right don't you? This statement just proves how little you actually know.

 

[FLVOL69]

Oh Lord Bart you really do believe your right don't you? This statement just proves how little you actually know.

If he's banging that I'll give em a pass, he needs help..