Global Warming Hoaxsters Say the Ocean is Sinking

jem said:
if you like cycles you should take a look at this paper.
the agw nutters like fraud currents tries to criticize this paper by saying it should have taken out seasonality.
But that is exactly what the Diff 12 does.

you can see change in ocean temps... the blue line leads the change in co2 levels the green line very clearly... because it has about a 90 percent correlation.


1-s2.0-S0921818112001658-gr5.jpg




https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Highlights
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
More...


Again with this stupid irrelevant shit.


liar
 
we don't have instrument data going back a thousand years so you have to go with proxies.

this graph is cited on your al gore funded favorite site skeptical science.

It shows us that the instrument record diverges from the proxy data.
do you really think that all of sudden tree rings broke?
don't you think its more likely the the instrument data is being tampered with to show more warming than we are really experiencing?

Besides if you read the papers they explain proxies are good for comparisons with themselves they are not providing exact temperatures.



Divergence_Tree_Growth_Temp.gif


Hide-the-Decline-Using-Mikes-Nature-Trick.jpg



futurecurrents said:
Jem

World surface

Air temps

last thousand years

Not from some guy's blog
More...
 
Again, shit charts from you that are a joke.

Just more proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
Try again. Try NASA, NOAA, The Hadley Climate Center or the Japanese Meteorological.


You know, reliable sources..

The divergence is actually more evidence of man made global warming.

One erroneous characterization is that scientists have been hiding the divergence problem. In fact, tree-ring divergence has been openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literarure since 1995. A perusal of the many peer reviewed papers (conveniently summarised in D’Arrigo 2008) reveal the following:

  • The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes.
  • The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic.
  • The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming.
  • Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.
 
Last edited:
so you are saying the proxy charts are not real charts. you science denying scum.

your charts of of instrument data whose records keep getting adjusted up.

They therefore look quite different from most of the proxy charts.




futurecurrents said:
Here you go jerm.

1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px.jpg



hocky-stick-climate-change.jpg
More...
 
look at those excuses...

likely to be...
reliable until they diverged...


occam's razor would tell you the divergence is most likely caused by upward adjustments of the instrument data not that all of sudden the tree rings "broke".

but at the very least in one paragraph your scientist is admitting that the graphs I chose were telling the truth.

yet you called them lies you anti science troll.



futurecurrents said:
Again, shit charts from you that are a joke.

Just more proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
Try again. Try NASA, NOAA, The Hadley Climate Center or the Japanese Meteorological.


You know, reliable sources..

The divergence is actually more evidence of man made global warming.

One erroneous characterization is that scientists have been hiding the divergence problem. In fact, tree-ring divergence has been openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literarure since 1995. A perusal of the many peer reviewed papers (conveniently summarised in D’Arrigo 2008) reveal the following:

  • The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes.
  • The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic.
  • The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming.
  • Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.
More...
 
jem said:
so you are saying the proxy charts are not real charts. you science denying scum.

your charts of of instrument data whose records keep getting adjusted up.

They therefore look quite different from most of the proxy charts.
More...
I think you are talking to Fruitcakes whom I have on ignore. ---I would like to point out, that that particular miscreant doesn't pay much attention to anything prior to 1800. He/she is not a truthful individual and does not look at all the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jem
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top