My area is getting hit hard by global warming

Same here in Chicago!

 

Local is not the same as global

Weather is not the same as climate

 

so local isn't part of the globe?

BTW, I suppose you only consider local when it's warming or there is a severe storm, then it's considered global? LOL, at the silliness of it.

Edit: If weather isn't climate, then how can a severe storm be considered as a result of climate change? See you're looking at this both ways to your advantage. NICE....... Don't let the silliness interrupt your life.

 

newsflash for ya Bower, utility bills are local also. Just cause the UK and the Aussies decided they would let the government force it's people to decide between electricity and food doesn't mean the same thing will happen here in the US no matter how bad our Democratic politicians want it to happen

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/17/eating-heating-furniture-cold-weather

ww.netmums.com/coffeehouse/general-coffeehouse-chat-514/news-current-affairs-topical-discussion-12/870458-1-4-families-forced-choose-between-eating-heating-all.html

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=987

Low-income households in Australia are increasingly at risk of "energy poverty", a situation in which a household must spend more than 10 percent of its disposable income on energy bills, according to a paper published in the latest issue of the Australian Journal of Social Issues.

'A new form of energy poverty is the hallmark of liberalised electricity sectors' is co-authored by Dr Lynne Chester of the University of Sydney and Dr Alan Morris of the University of New South Wales.

"Low-income households are the most vulnerable to this kind of poverty because their energy bills take a larger proportion of their disposable income," Dr Chester said.

In the five-year period from 2007 to 2012 the average increase in household electricity prices was 80 percent in NSW, more than 60 percent in Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania; and 38 to 45 percent in Northern Territory and the ACT. Further increases recently occurred in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.

 

The EXACT north pole and the EXACT south pole would also be local. I think...

 

aww geez! there you takin' rocket science stuff again...

 

Apropos of Nothing

 

What evidence? Data after 1855 does not appear on your, nor JD's graph. Your graphs don't support your claims.

So you again have nothing.

 

Deflection again! Your graph has no data points after 1855. Your graph does not support your claims. Because your graph has no datapoints after 1855, your claim that the " that present day temperatures are lower than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years and the graph clearly states thousands of years before present. " is not supported.

 

So you think "present" means 1855? You are not making any sense. A graph from the NOAA not good enough for you?

 

Try to keep up and save me the trouble of having to repeat myself.

 

You repeat yourself because you have nothing of importance to add or anything to debate. Now, are you saying the NOAA cannot be trusted and we should only pay attention to alarmist blogs like Skeptical Science?

BTW, there is no such thing as denier science unless you are talking about the actual science that does not bolster your alarmism. If that is the case, then you seem to be the science denier.

 

math impaired? The graph starts at present. We are recovering from the Maunder Minimum and need to warm another degree or two degree C to get back to the average temperature of the last 10K years.

 

Another deflection! You cannot address the fact that Dr. Ally's paper does not address the current warming so you deflect with ad homs and misinformation about my sources.
Typical!

- - - Updated - - -

Show me where in the paper the "present" is defined as "2000"

 

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

Also, the only way you can compare current data with past data is with ice core data. Tacking on temperature readings is misleading since they do not show up the same in ice cores, like the divergence of current temperatures with tree rings.

 

which part of the 0 at the bottom right of the graph that shows Age - Thousands of Years Above Present is confusing you

 

now now Dr Mann seems to think that mixing proxy data with instrument data to get the result you desire is good science if some of the proxy data does not get the results your puppet masters demand

- - - Updated - - -

 

Only because it's TRUE...

 

Because you don't provide a reference for your graph, the only clue is "Ally, R.B. 2000". So I'm guessing your graph comes from this paper:
The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland Richard B. Alley
I'll let you find "Age (thousands of years before 1950)" yourself.

Plus from a previous link in this thread, the first data point is, depending on the dataset, 119 or 95 years before "the present" (1950). I'll let you find that by yourself too.

 

it comes from 3 papers actually, but you would have known that if you had read the link in the first post ( #640) where I posted the graph. If you want to quibble over 1950 or 2014 that is ok considering that there has been no significant warming in almost 20 years now and 1950 - 1997's was less than a half degree. Looking at the graph we still need to warm up another 2 degrees just to recover from the drop in temperature that occurred immediately prior to 1855. Immediately prior being the average of temps 10K - 1K years before present

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.

Do you have anything except strawman arguments misdirectrion and attacking the source. Or is that the limit of your debating technique? What I would like to see is for you to explain everything that was responsible for all of the climate changes both warming and cooling periods in the past 10K years and show me how none are responsible for the current warming ?

 

What result do I desire?

 

if you are depending on grant money for your professional advancement I would suggest the one the people giving out the grants want to see.. never forget my first class in probs and statistics the professor told us the first step was to find out what the people paying us wanted to prove then find a way to make the data show that result. Just like the warm mongers always use data sets that begin at the end of the maunder Minimum also known as the little ice age. Of course it has been warming ever since, but they want to ignore that before that we had the medieval warm period. the roman warm period and the minoan warm period. We still need to warm up a couple more degrees just to hit average for the last few thousand years.

 

Again, what result do I desire? You must have some idea, you are the one that asserted I had a result I desired.

 

Once again with denialists it's all ideology. Facts, evidence simply are dismissed. There are plenty of graphs showing the entire Holocene period and the present radical upward temperature trend that is bucking the general down trend of the interglacial period we are in. It is presently blasting past the highest temperature in the Holocene. Of course the denialists have their own graphs which they lift from the usual denialist sites.

To get it on the record and this is only to 1990.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

By 2100 it should really get fun.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png