AGW vs NATURE- One point at a time

Not sure what that has to do with YOUR original premise of this supposed debate. But no there is no point for you to be talking about any actions on climate change with us... because you simply lie your way through, as you have here. You have not addressed one point... AS PER YOUR RULES... LOL

LOL... Of course you should leave it to those who want to consider the options in the appropriate thread.

Due to the fact that you wanted to debate "What are historical patterns of CO2 and warming?" I am really not sure why you would consider your resignation due to something that has absolutely NO relation to the topic YOU created... Again demonstrating your obvious and obtuse inability to provide evidence of your claims and debunking.

I love the Blog you produced to demonstrate your belief in the religion of AGW… Did you notice the graph you posted is actually WRONG… LOL perhaps actual observations in the Woodfortrees.org would help you to see that. But just about any graph from any sources of at least the slightest credibility will demonstrate it as being wrong…

Perhaps once again you should have read the article properly before attempting to demonstrate that somebodies opinion supported by... LOL ... Modelling….LOL got to love somebody who presents opinion as fact… LOL



View attachment 18824 derived from data in the IPCC AR5 draft report… LOL try debunking that one…LOL

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/


Oh diddums, nobody came to your aid?... It did not work out as you thought it would.

 

TV i have shown you many graphs that even the global warming religion uses.

Yet or some reason or another you just dont take ny notice and continue to pluck graphs willy nillyfrom sites that you dont even mention just to try and win the arguement.

Dude i have proven to you that CO2 and temperature dont correlate and never have.

Sure the zoomed out graph at 450000 years may appear to do but thats because its zoomed out a point we have made numerous times and you just ignore saying that its evidence of CO2 and temperature correlating.

If that was the case whether you zoomed in or out CO2 and temperature would correlate.

You wouldn't have to keep posting all these graphs that are zoomed out to around 5000000 years.

I'm afraid your using the global warming religions tactics.

And as most on here know thats how they decieve the sheeple.

BTW i never said cooling.

For there to be unequivocal temperature rises all the years after 1997 would have had to have been hotter.

Yet as you can see it just aint happening.

 

lol.......oh please.... Correlation has been established but you continue the ad hom and innuendo angle. The denialist debate is simply about misrepresenting the real science and not providing complete pictures.

There is no logical use debating action to tackle climate change with those that have their minds influenced by exxon mobil and their cronies twisted facts. Hey, they're all about making us fossil fuel dependent for centuries to come at any cost to humanity and to keep their dollars maximised. Renewable energy has many benefits.

Correlation has been discussed and it is quite evident from reliable ice cores and other proxies that this is the case. Evidence has been provided and "you" have provided it, but would rather take the cheap denialist argument to simply try and win a debate.....keep digging buddy!!!

The graph isn't wrong and neither are the ones dumb posted, it actually demonstrates how certain dates provide different readings. Dumb attempts to provide recent temperatures to provide trend.....it clearly doesn't..

Again gazza, the graphs aren't wrong.....time to go back and check that site yourself.....lol!!

More shallow conjecture!

This childish statement shows how shallow and desperate you are to get one up....lol. However, it has been obvious from endless threads back that others are obviously sick of debunking the same old sh!t that you two continue to post. They're obviously not manic in nature unlike............

 

You haven't proved that temperature and co2 do not correlate at all.

450,000 years argument
There is still a correlation and as you can see from the graph, they work clearly in tandem. Co2 preceded temperature and temperature preceded co2....if there was absolutely no correlation then this could only be demonstrated by one of these lines heading in the totally opposite direction. Surely buddy!

Current temperature argument
Are you challenged in some areas dumb......there are other natural variables to come into play that seemingly disguise the overall "TREND". Again, having an air conditioner on in 45 degree heat is going to disguise the real temperature isn't it? La ninas and volcanoes have obviously provided the analogical air conditioning effect....simple buddy!

Now, for the record....what do you believe is happening with current climate, is it cooling, warming or stabilising?

 

I dont think i can even if i wanted to, science has proven that CO2 doesn't correlate with temperature but rather follows it. The hotter it gets the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the ecosystems.

This is where you come unstuck TV, the scaleof 450000 or 500000 is zoomed just right that makes it appear that CO2 and temperature correlate.

If this was the case then when you zoomed in a little closer it would still correlate if zoomed out more it would still correlate.

Why do you think the global warming alarmists use this scale for?????

Its only common sense if they correlated you wouldn't have to keep shoving this one scale of 450000 years under our noses, you would get any scale from any time frame.

Simple you dont have to be a rocket scientists to work that one out LOL.

Sure there are many other variables, but how many valcanoes would have to erupt for your theory to hold true and how much aerosols would they have to emitt to cool the earth?

We are constantly told by alarmists that manmade CO2 emissions totally eclipse anything that valcanoes send up into our atmosphere, so it would seem strange that you would be hoping somehow that valcanoes emmit enough aerosols to cool the earth down.

Like i said we have not past the 1997 temperature which has been the highest in the last few decades therefore global warming has stalled as everyone including the IPCC the met office and James Hansen have admitted to.

Why is this such a hard thing for you to contemplate???????

 

If we look at the graphs below most of the global warming during the 20th centrury happened before 1940.

So the AGW religion couldn't even get that right, they report that most of the warming happened after 1950.

When we all know that temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 which sparked these very same clowns into action about global cooling and an ice age.

We have emiited 1/3 of all manmade CO2 into the atmosphere since 1998, yet temperatures are remaining relatively stable??

 

No correlation has not been established... Your statement of being so is another lie... We continue to ask you to provide evidence to establish this and nothing but a pretty picture and your statements that it clearly demonstrates correlation... So NO that is a lie. The fact that you consider that it is the entire correlation of CO2 to temperature is a misrepresenting the pretty picture, as it does not demonstrate the correlation you proclaim it does... Don't blame the other side of the debate for YOUR failings.

Yes there is... especially if the debate has nothing to do with addressing climate change... Not my premise but yours. SO as conspiracy theory is all you have, faith is all you rely on...

No it has not... YOU just say that is what it is... No correlation then your complaint nobody agrees with your premise, it has been discussed... LOL

So the evidence provided is right... But it does not demonstrate a trend? As stated... it does demonstrate a trend form 1998 to 2012... You cannot deny... However, your correlation of CO2 and temperature fails to be indicated as major emissions of CO2 continued to be emitted with no discernible increase in temperature... LOL

Fact that you do not understand what the graph is demonstrating seriously damages all your debate.

So either the graph is wrong, or your supposed correlation stands unsupported LOL.

Oh you want me to go and read your <<<Mod Edit: Profanity Removed>>>, but all you want is pretty pictures... LOL

Yes it is wrong... You state that none of the graphs are wrong, Yet all say various measurements at the 500,000 year mark, were your graph simply has printed on it of 650,000 years. LOL no they all can not be right showing different measurements.

Well instead of fabricating and back peddling, Provide evidence of your claims, nothing stated here has been debunked, YOU just assume it has (again without any evidence). Your logical fallacies and lies, produced in the faith that you are right, have done nothing to add to the debate. Nothing you have posted provides support for your stance. So it is faith you rely on, and faith you assumed others would back your words... <<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

 

It is clear that previously to 450,000 years that CO2 where much higher and did not follow temperature patterns. It is up to you do demonstrate the correlation you are proclaiming. Either by debunking the previous period or providing the evidence of why you believe that CO2 is the driving of temperature... SO far there is silence on that department.

No agreement yet another tangent... LOL follow your own rules...

 

Correlation has been proven, it is quite clear, you just choose to not see. If the lines were completely heading in opposite directs, there would be a case to answer. The fact that the ice core data suggest corresponding lines between co2 and temperature is enough evidence to indicate a strong relationship!

 

A strong relationship is not correlation. The problem you have is you need to demonstrate an actual driver between CO2 and Temperature, which you have not.

The pretty pictures simply show that CO2 are rising and falling at the same rate as temperature. To simply say that this demonstrates correlation is wrong. As there are many other driving forces on the climate than just CO2 which could be driven by the same thing as Temperature or by a mixture of drivers. So clearly, your generalisation is that you have assumed that there is only one driving force for temperature which is CO2. It is not the only GHG in the atmosphere and has never been established as the main driving force of the climate, that is something you have assumed.

You assume that due to the fact that one follows the other that means there is a correlation. This would be true, if we did not have earlier measurements of previous periods (which you agree are accurate) that demonstrate No relationship of any tangible way. So you need to account for previously measured atmospheric rates to ascertain your correlation. You have not.

So again, No correlation has not been proven. Or to put it into simpler terms for you, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO ARE.

 

Have you followed the discussion or do you ramble on with nonsense willy nilly? Have I said that co2 is the only driver?

 

So that is all you have?

Again, everything you have provided does not demonstrate any correlation between CO2 and temperature. The only way that could is if YOU assume that CO2 is the only driver.

Does not matter what you have said previously because it is obvious, should you not account for other drivers of climate, then yes, that is what you have to assumed, if you consider you have provided evidence of correlation... So again you have not done anything of the sort.

 

You're struggling with this ain't ya garry? Do the lines of the graph have a similar pattern? View attachment 18939 Now if these lines were heading in totally separate directions such as this: then we could categorically say they are not correlated. By the way I asked my 8 year old nephew to draw a graph that is the opposite to the ice core graph.

Common, lets get real....

 

So, again you are discounting any other forces that may have similar affects to both... So your graph does not demonstrate correlation, it simply demonstrates there is a similar pattern to movement... That is not correlation.

Again SO, if that is your proof of correlation then you are seriously lacking in this area. This would mean you assume that there is a correlation and have faith that your opinion of that faith is correct. Nowhere have you established what, if any correlation of the two. Again YOU assume that due to later similarities means correlation, but unable to account for further forcing means that you have provided no proof of correlation.

Wow, you could not do your own work. Who is really struggling here?

Let us get real... provide evidence that your assumption of correlation is correct. That would be getting real.

Again the only way your assumption can be remotely evidence of correlation is that you are assuming that CO2 is the only driving force... LOL

 

TV after many posts you have failed to show that CO2 and temperature correlate, the only one on this forum that thinks they do is you.

Common sense would tell the average person that if CO2 and temperature correlated then no matter what scale you would be viewing they would do so.

BUT the global warming religious blogs, web sites and zealots always dish up the 450,000 year scale because on that scale, it seems that they follow each other.

If they did indeed follow each other it wouldn't matter which scale you used, plain and simple.

FAIL.....................no need to say anymore...................

 

These graphs have been shown for what they are but you continue to push em. You never have a response for them but continue to post em as though people are stupid enough to believe it despite being exposed time and time again!

You can not argue with the correlation with the desperate attempt to suggest because it is zoom out it looks the same. That's simply a shallow argument lmao! Zoom out the other figure I posted as much as you like but it won't show a correlation.

There is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, it is quite evident.

 

These top two graphs are from legitimate ice core data sets available at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Vostok Ice Core data.

The bottom one is from a scientific study paper of the paleo climate.

Nothing wrong with these graphs, they are legit, no matter what you say, unless of course if you can refute them, which you have never done.

About 10 or 15 years ago most scientists (skeptics and alarmists alike) agreed that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.

There is no correlation between CO2 & temperature, even if you have a close look at the 450,000 year scale you will see that CO2 lags temperature.

Where is your evidence??...........So far you have been unable to prove it!!!!!!

Scientists agree that CO2 lags temperature, do you understand this statement and the implications it has to anthropogenic global warming?


.

 

Common dumb, there has been a lot of water under bridge since 15 years ago as BB demonstrated! Yes, all scientist believe there is a lag and also the opposite as well! It is not hard to see that co2 has also led temperature. You tend to skip the "amplification" implications time and time again.

Now go back and zoom my nephews pictorial representation of a graph as you delusionally would like to view the real graph and see if you can draw a correlation from it! It's such a nonsensensical argument regarding correlation, it is quite clear!

 

I find it funny that you are attempting to demonstrate something that clearly has not been demonstrated by science. Yet you consider your opinion is fact... No again, you have not demonstrated correlation, you have just assumed it.

 

TV you have failed to demosntrate anything of the sort.

Except of course in your own mind.

Which is cool, we all appreciate and understand this world with our own senses.

Some peoples senses are more finely tuned than others,

Like i said when you actually find some evidence please come on here and report it.

I'm always open to new evidence.

 

You don't need new evidence you just need to put conspiracy theories and your political persuasion to one side! Now zoom out my nephews pictorial graph and see if you can draw a correlation. If you can do this I'd consider my position! If you can't reconsider yours!