Vostok last 12000 years
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...I3PAhVFTSYKHZMCCNkQMwgkKAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...I3PAhVFTSYKHZMCCNkQMwgkKAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8
Sorry, help me out, please explain how those graphs change what's being discussed?
All of these graphs show something that looks nothing like the cartoon you posted.Sorry, help me out, please explain how those graphs change what's being discussed?
Its not my stance.So, you are making the case that temperatures have fluctuated by a much larger degree than what was suggested in the graph I posted? Is that your stance?
That is one theory.Some points apparent in those graphs --
Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 and methane) drive up temperature .
.
We dont need Vostok ice core temp data for the last 100 years. We have records for that.Vostok ice core data ends over 100 years ago.
Its not my stance.
It just is.
Mann's "hockey stick" was "peer reviewed".So your scientific opinion is that the graphs you posted prove the graph I posted is wrong? If I can link you peer reviewed data that proves it right, would you change your opinion?
I have more questions, but let's get those answered first. You are looking for data that proves Global temperature averages have fluctuated by much larger degrees then what is presented in the graphic I posted, I intend to change that narrative.
The last 40 years we actually have satellite data.
Nothing has been proven in regards to the actual effect of anthropogenic co2 on climate.So your scientific opinion is that the graphs you posted prove the graph I posted is wrong? If I can link you peer reviewed data that proves it right, would you change your opinion?
I have more questions, but let's get those answered first. You are looking for data that proves Global temperature averages have fluctuated by much larger degrees then what is presented in the graphic I posted, I intend to change that narrative.
Satellites can read the global average more accuratly than averaging of limited weather station data.I'm not sure 30-40 year old satellite data is relied upon by most scientists. Just making the point that our Earth Science technology has gotten a ton better in the last 20 years... not that it changes the discussion much.
Mann's "hockey stick" was "peer reviewed".
Can you point me to the proof of anthropogenic co2 induced global warming?
- PALEOCLIMATOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR UNPRECEDENTED RECENT TEMPERATURE RISE AT THE EXTRATROPICAL PART OF THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE
- Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20,000 years
- Twentieth century warming in deep waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: A unique feature of the last millennium
- Ammonium concentration in ice cores: A new proxy for regional temperature reconstruction?
- High-resolution palaeoclimatology of the last millennium: a review of current status and future prospects (Jones 2009)
- A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record (Huang et al. 2008)
- Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia (Mann et al.2008)
- Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods (Mann 2007)
- Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation (Juckes et al. 2007)
- Global Warming 2007. An Update to Global Warming: The Balance of Evidence and Its Policy Implications (Keller, 2007)
- Proxy-Based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network, Target Season, and Target Domain (Rutherford et al. 2005)
- Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records (Oerlemans, 2005)
- Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data (Moberg et al. 2005)
- Climate over past millennia (Jones & Mann, 2004)
- Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia (Mann & Jones, 2003)
- Optimal surface temperature reconstructions using terrestrial borehole data (Mann et al. 2003)
- On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth (Mann 2003)
- Mid?latitude (30°–60° N) climatic warming inferred by combining borehole temperatures with surface air temperatures (Harris & Chapman, 2001)
- Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network (Briffa et al. 2001)
- Climate Reconstruction from Subsurface Temperatures (Pollack & Huang, 2000)
- Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees (Briffa, 2000)
- Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations (Mann 1999)
- Climate Change Record in Subsurface Temperatures: A Global Perspective (Huang et al. 1998)
- High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures (Jones et al. 1998)
- Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann et al. 1998)
- 'Little Ice Age' summer temperature variations: their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends (Bradley & Jones, 1993)
- Changing Climate: Geothermal Evidence from Permafrost in the Alaskan Arctic (Lachenbruch & Marshall, 1986)
Nothing has been proven in regards to the actual effect of anthropogenic co2 on climate.
Can you point me to the proof of anthropogenic co2 induced global warming?
Im short on time.
Science doesnt care how you feel.Nothing is not the right word to use. Can we say for sure what the overall impact is, no. I've said from the very beginning, a rational discussion on the topic of AGW should not involve any absolutes. Good Science evolves and changes as new information comes to light.
The important thing is to discuss what is reasonable based on what we currently know.
If we have to argue about what we currently know, for political and profiteering reasons, then we can't have a discussion and that's what's going on here.
My "hockey schtick" comment was a sarcastic rebuke.No, see above. That was a specific response to your specific point about the "hockey stick" being peer reviewed.