My area is getting hit hard by global warming

I can sum up my response to your post in two letters - BS. go peddle the propaganda and fake computer model graphs elsewhere Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, and is nothing more than a K street lobbying and propaganda site funded by watermelons and ran by watermelons.
from NOAA



References cited:
Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226.

Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow. 1997. Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition. Journal of Geophysical Research 102:26383-26396.

National Research Council. 2002. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Academy Press, 2002, Washington, D.C. 230 p.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html

 

dunno but what I desire is that you brush up on your reading comprehension since I was referring to Mann and his trick of mixing tree proxy data with instrument data could " hide the decline "in post #668.

 

Maybe brush up on your writing skills and instead of saying "the result you desire" instead say "the result he desired".

 

perhaps I should have used the word "one" instead of " of the word "you" as a indefinite pronoun. I was using Mann as a example but the hide the decline trick and data diddling ( homogenizing and cherry picking) has been used by a lot of warm mongers

 

Got it. No prob. Just made me curious what you meant.

 

No, the graph comes from 1 paper that states "Age (thousands of years before 1950)". The other 2 papers are referenced by Dr. Alley but add no data to the graph.


You're comparing apples (global temperature) and oranges (Greenland temperature). Typical denier science!
So let's compare oranges to oranges.
Notice how the warmest temp on your graph is ~-28C during the so-called MWP. Look what the temps in Greenland have been in the last 100+ years:

source
The lowest the temps have been since 1880 is -18C; the highest is +3. That's not a small difference. Well over the warmest years of the so-called MWP. Ignoring the recent measured temps is dishonest.
And stating that the global increase has been under 0.5C while ignoring the ~3C rise in Greenland (which is what we were discussing) is dishonest

 

From the blog you linked to.

Also, there was even greater warmth 400 to 800 thousand years ago with boreal forests existing on Greenland with little sea level rise. Did man do that?

 

I can see you are back to quoting blogs which think the typical warm monger trick of quoting blogs which are only concerned with data that starts in the mid 1800's and trying to pretend that all areas of the earth warm and cool simultaneously.

An undeniable facts is that in the last 10,000 years Earth has underwent many warming and cooling phases and no climate scientist can explain the natural causes of these temperature changes. Co2 averaged around 270 ppm during most of these climate changes and until you can identify and quantify all of the natural factors you have no idea if Co2 is affecting the current warming.

Also a fact is that we underwent a cooling phase that ended in the mid 1800 and is stands to reason the Earth is just naturally warming again. Co2 is most certainly not the Earths thermostat since there have many documented climate changes over the last 10K years and none correlate with any changes in Co2. It is only coincidence that we recovered from a cooling phase at the same time the industrial revolution began.

If you want to be the a puppet for politicians who want to enrich their wallets at the expense of the poor knock yourself out. Personally I just regard them as evil

 

More denialist ideological absurdities. First he uses a one ice core site to try and make a broad recent temperature statement. That's not even close to making sense for world temperature and in the short term. You want the NOAA? I'll give you the NOAA. For our flat earth friend try this.



More NOAA going back 1000 years.

 

Thanks for re-enforcing my argument.You're not doing very well keeping up with the topic!
Let me update you!
Flogger posted a graph which I showed "the present" as defined by the paper he referenced was 1950. The first data point on the graph, according to the data in the study was 95 years before the present, i.e. 1855. JD chimed in with the same mis-interpretation of the paper. I pointed out that the warmest that the study showed for Greenland was during the "MWP" at ~28C and current temps, (and thanks to you temps in the 1930s) were warmer than the temps in Greenland during the "MWP". So Flogger's & JD's graph of Dr. Ally's paper does not show that global temps, nevermind Greenland temps, were warmer during the "MWP" because there is no data in Dr. Ally's paper for after 1855.

When will the pseudoscientists under stand that no................one ....................is .......................claiming......................that...............CO2.................is ................ the ....................... only..................... factor................... influencing................. climate.
When will pseudoscientists understand that none................of .................... the....................... factors.................which .................. influenced...................climate.....................in ........................the ...........................past................... are........................ responsible ...........................for .......................the ...........................sudden................... change ......................we .....................are......................currently ..................experiencing.
So you can keep repeating that argument and continue to look clueless or you can stop using that strawman and show that you have at least a minimal understanding of the science.

 

So you're going to ignore your misinterpretation of the graph and your apples to oranges comparison and deflect and use the "uncertainty tactic" suggested by Luntz!
Just about what I expected from you.

 

So, what was responsible for the equally "sudden" change in recorded temps before the influx of CO2?

 

I am not misinterpreting anything and you continue to use smoke and mirrors and post graphs that start at the end of the little ice age. Post me a real graph that shadows the correlation of Co2 and Earth's temperature going back 10K years......oops you cant becasuue that would expose your fraudulant claims wouldn't it? So I just expect you too fal back to your usual tactics like misdirection, attacking the source and strawmen. That seems to be the only debating techniques you have, God only knows facts are not on the warm mongers sides

 

The boreal forests of 400 to 800 thousand years ago weren't created by a "sudden" change.

 

Duh! It was warmer than today and how would you know about any change, sudden or not?

 

most of the lat 10,000 years was warmer than today also, but the warm mongers refuse to discuss that also. Their scare tactics and propaganda won't work when you go back farther than the end of the little ice age

 

The topic I'm addressing is the temps of Greenland and your graph and claim that the temps of Greenland were higher during the "MWP" than they are today. I provided you with evidence that you are wrong. Address the topic or go away.

 

now me going away is not going to happen. I think I will just hang around and and continue to point out that AGW is just a political scam perpetrated by dishonest shills for 30 pieces of silver. Maybe I can figure out why people are willing to to cause their neighbors to have to choose between fuel and food for a cubical ion a green lobbyist's office

 

How about the fact that he's using degree F and not C in his graph to show a line up for temperature. What a joke. 0.5 degree F. What is that in degree C? zero. SILLY.

 

Because it's his argument. That's all of this, his argument. It is because he says it is. The facts don't support him, but he says so, so it is. All of them. Silly

 

Prove it was sudden.

 

not even a challenge, since you didn't define it I think I will go with the most abrupt climate change

Source: Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow, "Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland throughout the last deglacial transition", Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 383-396, 1997.

the ice core record showed frequent sudden warmings and coolings of 15°F (8°C) or more. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years. In one case 11,600 years ago, when Earth emerged from the final phase of the most recent ice age (an event called the Younger Dryas), the Greenland ice core data showed that a 15°F (8°C) warming occurred in less than a decade, accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years. Most of this doubling occurred in a single year.

 

the AGW lobbyists cater to the low information crowd knowing that they are too stupid or too lazy to do any actual research past the lobbyists websites so therefore the pro AGW crowd is convinced that climate began at the end of the little ice age. Once you go back farther than the 14th century the climate was warmer than today's so it is only natural the the Earth is warming back up.

During the little ice age food supplies were scarce and mankinds suffering increased yet that is exactly what the warm mongers are trying to do today and succeeding in some parts of the world by increasing energy poverty. Why anyone could support the AGW cult when it is causing so much needless suffering is beyond me. I would clean toilets at the bus station before working in a lobbying firm for the AGW movement

 

Gosh, it is in all the recorded temperature records before 1950's before the dramatic increase in CO2. But then, you probably don't keep up on that.

 

Wonder what it feels like to warm to death?