Is Current Global Warming Unprecedented?

I will ignore the bit that is pure troll and simply re-iterate that the basic physics and properties of CO2 have been known for a long time as this scientific American article proves
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

 

Yes it is isn't it - it is one of the major indicators that the last few decades the impact of the sun has been overridden by the impact of rising CO2

 

You chicken littles are the ones having trouble with telling the truth. Make up all the (*)(*)(*)(*) you want but we've just came thru 30 some odd years of cooling temps.

 

So taxing the sun will cure this? I am all for it. Slap a lien in its property if it doesn't pay up.

 

Utterly hilarious! To show how honest he is, Hogwash posts magazine covers that are totally fake!

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

Who's drinkin' that Kool-Aide, Hog? Looks like it's you.

 

YOU are drinking the kool aid. There is nothing fake about this Time cover except the fact that the polar bear lives on those ice chunks when they are looking for seals. Time would have us believe that the entire polar icecap melted.

And those charts and graphs are as phony as the infamous hockey stick graph.

 

We did?

 

I was playing around on another forum this morning and found out an interesting tidbit about southern hemisphere warming during the MWP I did not know. During the MWP taro was farmed in throughout New Zealand. Botanists have been experimenting recently to cultivate a variety which will grow well in New Zealand's temperate climate but apparently 600 or so years ago the climate had warmed enough to grow the standard tropical variety even in the southern regions

http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/sap235.pdf

 

Do you notice that while temperature follows the up and down cycles of solar activity, it is inclined at an angle? Why do you think that is?

Do you think only one forcing can affect climate at a give time?

 

Another hockey stick graph?

A graph measuring alcohol consumption among alarmists?

Just plain old drawing a phony graph and labeling it anything you want?

 

I'm beginning to think his handle is quite appropriate.

 

You don't know much about what is going on in scientific circles do you?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you really don't know what is going on, do you?

 

Large Erroneous Assumption About Natural Land Sinks For CO2: New Paper

The paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12575/abstract

 

Once again, Hogwash posts a graph with fake numbers as "proof" of his "honesty".

Take a look at the x-axis of that graph: it says "Years before present (2000 AD)".

Now take a look at the actual-peer-reviewed data from which Hogwash's faked graph was drawn:

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

Note that column 1 is labeled "Age (thousand years before present) ". And "before present" in geoscience means before 1950 AD, not before 2000 AD. Since the first datapoint in the ice core is .095 thousand years BP, the latest date in this ice core is 1855.

Not only did Hogwash (or more likely, his dishonest source) misrepresent the dates on this chart, you can't even tell what the current temperature in Greenland is from this chart or from the underlying data.

That's twice in two days you've been caught posting dishonest crap on the forum, Hog. Don't you think it's about time you started reading more honest sources?

 

Yet current Greenland temp is around -30 which is well within the normal range of temperatures after coming out of the Little Ice Age.

 

Source?

 

Just goes to show you anyone of you libs can post any hockey stick graph you want to (or photoshopped pics). Just a little lesson in the reality of lying. Except the polar bear floating on the ice chunk was real...but Time magazine would have you think that bear couldn't swim or dive for seals. The polar bear CHOSE to be there.

 

It doesn't matter the source. You would poorly debate it.

 

This is a good example of why I wouldn't trust the GWPF as a source. Let's take a closer look at the following line:

Here they are comparing apples to oranges when they should know better. Below is the source of the 42% number in the original paper's abstract:

Notice the paper is comparing inland water GHC emissions to the estimated land carbon sink, not total CO2 emissions as the GWPF says. Notice too that they don't give you the numbers presented just before the 42% statement:

So the paper is estimating inland water CO2 emissions in India at 22 teragrams per year. Extrapolate this across Earth's entire land area and you get 1,100 teragrams, or about 1 gigaton of CO2 per year. Since the 4% of total CO2 emissions produced by human activity equals about 30 gigatons per year, this potential error represents an order of magnitude LESS than man-made sinks/sources, not more.

 

There are lame excuses, there are pathetic rationales and then there is this piece of - shakes head

It is not about polar bears - or do you think that some species are CHOOSING to become extinct just to spite humanity

 

Little hard to separate long term trends from short term variability in global average temperatures when you only use one data point, isn't it?

Probably from here: Christopher A. Shuman, Konrad Steffen,Jason E. Box, and Charles R. Stearns (April 2001). "A Dozen Years of Temperature Observations at the Summit: Central Greenland Automatic Weather Stations 1987–99". Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

 

They are about as extinct as roaches. If they are coming close to extinction...which they are not...it's from being hunted an killed, not because of lack of ice or climate change at the north pole. Just like the African continent which had to kick in some strict hunting safari laws to try and stop the slaughter of elephants and other animals for their ivory tusks and skins. You people are ridiculous with your phony global warming.

 

Once again you focus on one animal where my reply was general

There is more than one species threatened with extinction from global warming

 

Current average to compare to the past record.

 

Remember when you worried you little liberal head off about the hole in ozone layer? And then it magically filled in all by itself? Why don't you give your hockey stick CO² level a chance to magically decrease like it magically increased? You people just can't find enough (*)(*)(*)(*) to worry about and accuse Republicans of causing.