2015 looking like another world record year for the global warming trend.

[TheLurch]

I see - YB 1912 - with a dashed line extending vertically from the notation - means that the graph stops in 1912. (x axis) ... which means that the report refers to an investigation undertaken in 2006 into 94 year old data. The "current date" shown on the Y Axis can hardly have been 1912 - or - perhaps you could point me to any papers that were prepared on climate warming (the research for which, incidentally, had the technology available to measure carbon deposits) that would show "current date" to mean 1912?



This time from Greenland - and the date at the bottom of the graph is actually stipulated. Strangely, these graphs closely reflect the data that was displayed on the Antarctic graphs. This graph also clearly marks the temperatures that prevailed in the year 2000.

You can keep showing individual sites, but they're meaningless. There are well-established methods for generating a global mean surface temperature from multiple sites around the globe, and several data sets they've been used on. Every team that's done these reconstructions comes up with the same general result: recent warming is unprecedented in the last thousand years, and possibly for longer. The National Academies of Science even looked at this and did a comprehensive report:

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static...emps_final.pdf

The report is now out of date, in that further reconstructions have been done. But none of them contradict the findings that were current when it was produced.

[tabibito]

The same year and the same academic body that I cited earlier - for all that it is a different paper. So - what did they say in 2015?
Global Warming 2015.jpg

So - it boils down to how much confidence can be placed in the records prior to the little ice age. In which case, I will change "it has been shown" to "it is my opinion that it has been shown." ...

[TheLurch]

If you know all this, why are you throwing around random anecdotes as if they're significant?

[tabibito]

I wasn't aware of the 2015 findings until today (last time I checked, I either missed them or they had not yet been released). The "random anecdotes" were simply satisfactory supporting evidence for an alternative view that I consider valid. Among the evidence advanced were higher coast lines (and higher tree lines in certain areas) in the past, than are extant. Higher tree lines - maybe regional. Higher coast lines, not so likely to be regional.

[Kbertsche]

I see - YB 1912 - with a dashed line extending vertically from the notation - means that the graph stops in 1912. (x axis) ... which means that the report refers to an investigation undertaken in 2006 into 94 year old data. The "current date" shown on the Y Axis can hardly have been 1912 - or - perhaps you could point me to any papers that were prepared on climate warming (the research for which, incidentally, had the technology available to measure carbon deposits) that would show "current date" to mean 1912?

I'm just going by what your graph says; I have no further information. The x-axis clearly says that its dates are "YB 1912" (years before 1912). The note says that this is based on ice core data which stopped in 1912. According to the note, the "current temperature" noted on the y-axis is based on other data which is not shown, and may be incorrect.

[Jichard]

I see - YB 1912 - with a dashed line extending vertically from the notation - means that the graph stops in 1912. (x axis) ... which means that the report refers to an investigation undertaken in 2006 into 94 year old data. The "current date" shown on the Y Axis can hardly have been 1912 - or - perhaps you could point me to any papers that were prepared on climate warming (the research for which, incidentally, had the technology available to measure carbon deposits) that would show "current date" to mean 1912?



This time from Greenland - and the date at the bottom of the graph is actually stipulated. Strangely, these graphs closely reflect the data that was displayed on the Antarctic graphs. This graph also clearly marks the temperatures that prevailed in the year 2000.

You know you could just read the paper, instead of relying at the liars at c3headlines?

High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

[Roy]

This graph also clearly marks the temperatures that prevailed in the year 2000.

No, it doesn't.

Do any of your graphs show what you claim they do?

[tabibito]

You know you could just read the paper, instead of relying at the liars at c3headlines?

High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

What does c3headlines have to do with the (US) National Academies of Science?

I've taken the data from that report (dated 2015) because it shows the least bias for either side of the debate.

No, it doesn't.

Do any of your graphs show what you claim they do?

[Roy]

You know you could just read the paper, instead of relying at the liars at c3headlines?

High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

What does c3headlines have to do with the (US) National Academies of Science?

Are you denying that you got that graph from c3headlines?

I've taken the data from that report (dated 2015) because it shows the least bias for either side of the debate.

That data is from 2011, not 2015.

Roy

[tabibito]

Are you denying that you got that graph from c3headlines?That data is from 2011, not 2015.

Roy

Yup - I messed that up.

[Roy]

Yup - I messed that up.

Ok, so you did get that graph from c3headlines, and when you wrote this: "What does c3headlines have to do with the (US) National Academies of Science?" you were effectively lying about your sources.

So nothing you say from this point on is worth reading.

Roy

[TheLurch]

At this point, I've lost track of whether a coherent argument has been made. So i'll make one:

The best evidence we have is that the warming of the 20th century is unprecedented, and reverses a general downward trend that began about 5,000 years ago.

Supporting evidence:
"Robust global ocean cooling trend for the pre-industrial Common Era"
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2510.html

"A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/33.../1198.abstract

And the previously mentioned National Academies report and ensuing proxy reconstructions.

Incidentally, the downward trend is in keeping with calculations of Milankovich cycles, which suggest the peak of solar irradiance in this interglacial came about 7,000 years ago.

[tabibito]

Ok, so you did get that graph from c3headlines, and when you wrote this: "What does c3headlines have to do with the (US) National Academies of Science?" you were effectively lying about your sources.

So nothing you say from this point on is worth reading.

Roy

figure 1.jpgfigure 2.jpg

Now I may have been mistaken about the actual source of the graph in question - so I'll double check.

ETA

That particular piece comes from the American Geophysical Union.

[Roy]

Ok, so you did get that graph from c3headlines, and when you wrote this: "What does c3headlines have to do with the (US) National Academies of Science?" you were effectively lying about your sources.

Now I may have been mistaken about the actual source of the graph in question...

Not mistaken. Lying. You got that graph from c3headlines, or some similar site. Not from the NAS or Kobashi et al.

... so I'll double check.

You mean you'll track down the original graph and pretend that was your source. Won't work.

That particular piece comes from the American Geophysical Union.

That isn't where you got it from though. You lied about your source, and now you're just compounding that pointless, useless, completely unnecessary lie.

Oh what a tangled web.

Roy

[tabibito]

You lied about your source, and now you're just compounding that pointless, useless, completely unnecessary lie.

Oh what a tangled web.

Roy

Your opinion, and slander, are noted.