Early 2019 UK weather: coldest day in seven years as mercury drops to -14.4C

Visbek · Aug 21, 2019

code1211 said:
Oh, look!

Another person that prefers propaganda to data.

:roll:

You're not presenting data, you're just spewing denier trash. Yawn

Look at the real data and you'll understand that we are warming to a point that we cooled from about 5000 to 7000 years ago.

I am looking at real data. And the problem is, as I pointed out, that we're warming 10x faster than if the causes were natural. And temperatures are going to keep on rising.

Ice Ages are caused by extraterrestrial events.

:roll:

Climate scientists are well aware that natural events can cause shifts in climate. That fact does not in any way refute the claim that what we are seeing now is due to human activity. Try to keep up.

Mankind does not have the ability to control and direct the climate of the planet.

There is no question that humans have an impact on climate. For example, human beings caused a hole in the ozone layer to form, just by emitting CFCs for a few decades. (That hole is now starting to close, because... wait for it... we banned CFCs in the late 1980s). We are causing all sorts of impacts, ranging from global temperature, to sea levels, to ocean salinity, to causing droughts and heat waves and and and....

Let us know when you're going to stop making such utterly foolish and ignorant statements, kthx.

Visbek · Aug 21, 2019

code1211 said:
The graph you presented last is interesting as it demonstrates the natural relationship between CO2 and temperature. Higher temperatures cause higher CO2 concentrations in the period of Ice Age/Interglacial cycling.

lol

Uh, no. In that graph, the red line is CO2, and blue is temperature. It's from a paper that -- surprise! -- shows how, yes, increases in CO2 precede increases in temperature. What most likely happened at the end of the last Ice Age is that there was an orbital shift, which caused enough warming to unlock sequestered CO2, which resulted in thousands of years of very gradual increases in temperature. This is evident when, like the authors of the paper, you look at proxy data from more than just one specific (cherry-picked) site.
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

You present the Hockey Stick? Seriously?

You try to equate proxy records and instrumental records, then try to deny what those records actually say? Seriously?

The excitement incited by the propagandists is over a warming of less than one degree from the coldest point of the Holocene in about 9000 years. We are now warming but are well within a normal range.

I've already explained to you how that is not correct. Try to pay attention.

Here'a web site that you may use to construct your own comparisons.

:roll:

Yes, I'm familiar with Wood for Trees. It is hilarious that one minute you proclaim that these data sources are invalid, then... present them as authoritative.

Since you don't seem to understand your own chart:

• Since you're working with satellite data, your chart is very short -- 1978 to present.

• GISTEMP and HADCRUT measure surface temperatures. UAH and RSS are satellites which measure the lower troposphere. I.e. they aren't measuring the same thing, thus it is not at all surprising that there are some differences (as well as powerful and important similarities).

• UAH is well-known for its failures to adjust for factors like changes in satellite orbit... and for being compiled by a pair of AGW deniers. Despite those problems, even UAH shows an increase in temperatures of roughly 0.4 to 0.5C in the past 30 years.

• HADCRUT v3 is outdated. You should use HADCRUT4 Global ("HADCRUT4GL").

• "WTI" is the site owner's own proprietary mix of HADCRUT4GL, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH. When the graph is set up properly -- as seen in WTI's own notes on WTI -- then it ends up in the middle of the four measures (Wood for Trees: Notes).

• Somehow, you missed the fact that even when we are looking at 1979 to present, there is a significant -- and unprecedented -- increase in temperatures in a short period of time. How convenient.

So, let's show a chart that actually makes sense for comparing global temperature measures. Namely: GISS and HADCRUT4 are quite close from 1880 to present.

On average, GISTEMP is around 0.076C higher than HADCRUT4 (i.e. no, that's not a huge amount). Guess what? Climate scientists are aware of this, and the reasons why (e.g. GISTEMP interpolates, HADCRUT does not; they use slightly different raw data sources; they apply slightly different adjustments etc).

Despite their very minor differences, the correlation coefficient for these two measures is 0.97 -- which, since you probably don't know what that means either, means that those two measures are highly correlated. (Even the problematic UAH6 is strongly correlated with GISTEMP and HADCRUTV4 -- 0.82.)

Thanks for a) illustrating that you don't really know what you're talking about, and b) providing me the opportunity to display how the data actually does agree fairly well.

code1211 · Aug 22, 2019

ataraxia said:
I don’t know where you’re getting this from. It sounds like these are the same “experts” that tell us that the earth is only 6000 years old and vaccines don’t work.

Because everything I have seen from any scientific organization or textbook on the subject says stuff like this:

You immediately open your jar of religion is bad to respond?

Then, you post a word salad containing absolutely NO DATA.

Your response was both idiotic and ignorant.

References used in my post were from actual science. References you seem to revere to support your dogma are propaganda.

Do you even know what an interglacial is?

code1211 · Aug 22, 2019

Visbek said:
:roll:

You're not presenting data, you're just spewing denier trash. Yawn

I am looking at real data. And the problem is, as I pointed out, that we're warming 10x faster than if the causes were natural. And temperatures are going to keep on rising.

:roll:

Climate scientists are well aware that natural events can cause shifts in climate. That fact does not in any way refute the claim that what we are seeing now is due to human activity. Try to keep up.

There is no question that humans have an impact on climate. For example, human beings caused a hole in the ozone layer to form, just by emitting CFCs for a few decades. (That hole is now starting to close, because... wait for it... we banned CFCs in the late 1980s). We are causing all sorts of impacts, ranging from global temperature, to sea levels, to ocean salinity, to causing droughts and heat waves and and and....

Let us know when you're going to stop making such utterly foolish and ignorant statements, kthx.

A lot of rubbish.

Do you have any relevant data to support your assertion?

In every interglacial over the last half million years, the globe was warmer.

In this interglacial, the globe was warmer.

We are warming from the coldest point in this interglacial to an average temperature for this interglacial.

There is nothing in this that is difficult to understand and yet is is slipping through your fingers.

How much real data you you need to ignore to support your dogma?

Regarding your prediction of dire consequence, most predictions for extreme warming have been wrong:

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong << Roy Spencer, PhD

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

code1211 · Aug 22, 2019

Visbek said:
lol

Uh, no. In that graph, the red line is CO2, and blue is temperature. It's from a paper that -- surprise! -- shows how, yes, increases in CO2 precede increases in temperature. What most likely happened at the end of the last Ice Age is that there was an orbital shift, which caused enough warming to unlock sequestered CO2, which resulted in thousands of years of very gradual increases in temperature. This is evident when, like the authors of the paper, you look at proxy data from more than just one specific (cherry-picked) site.
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

You try to equate proxy records and instrumental records, then try to deny what those records actually say? Seriously?

I've already explained to you how that is not correct. Try to pay attention.

:roll:

Yes, I'm familiar with Wood for Trees. It is hilarious that one minute you proclaim that these data sources are invalid, then... present them as authoritative.

Since you don't seem to understand your own chart:

• Since you're working with satellite data, your chart is very short -- 1978 to present.

• GISTEMP and HADCRUT measure surface temperatures. UAH and RSS are satellites which measure the lower troposphere. I.e. they aren't measuring the same thing, thus it is not at all surprising that there are some differences (as well as powerful and important similarities).

• UAH is well-known for its failures to adjust for factors like changes in satellite orbit... and for being compiled by a pair of AGW deniers. Despite those problems, even UAH shows an increase in temperatures of roughly 0.4 to 0.5C in the past 30 years.

• HADCRUT v3 is outdated. You should use HADCRUT4 Global ("HADCRUT4GL").

• "WTI" is the site owner's own proprietary mix of HADCRUT4GL, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH. When the graph is set up properly -- as seen in WTI's own notes on WTI -- then it ends up in the middle of the four measures (Wood for Trees: Notes).

• Somehow, you missed the fact that even when we are looking at 1979 to present, there is a significant -- and unprecedented -- increase in temperatures in a short period of time. How convenient.

So, let's show a chart that actually makes sense for comparing global temperature measures. Namely: GISS and HADCRUT4 are quite close from 1880 to present.

View attachment 67262256

On average, GISTEMP is around 0.076C higher than HADCRUT4 (i.e. no, that's not a huge amount). Guess what? Climate scientists are aware of this, and the reasons why (e.g. GISTEMP interpolates, HADCRUT does not; they use slightly different raw data sources; they apply slightly different adjustments etc).

Despite their very minor differences, the correlation coefficient for these two measures is 0.97 -- which, since you probably don't know what that means either, means that those two measures are highly correlated. (Even the problematic UAH6 is strongly correlated with GISTEMP and HADCRUTV4 -- 0.82.)

Edited for length.

The paper linked is counter intuitive. The writer postulates that temperature rose first, then CO2 rose, then CO2 rose before temperature rose in the Antarctic.

The obvious question is "Where did the additional CO2 come from and why did it get outgassed?

If it was volcanic, the resulting ash provides a global cooling effect. If it was from melting permafrost, obviously, the permafrost was melting. What caused the swarming to melt the permafrost?

Finally, regarding that link, it seems to be centered on the CO2 in the Antarctic. It says that CO2 in the antarctic rose before warming elsewhere. Obviously proxy data used here.

What caused the outgassing of the CO2 that your paper says caused the Antarctic warming?

The Hockey Stick is a debunked, contrived piece of propaganda.

The presentation of the various data sources represents only that the experts disagree on what the temperature is right now today. They have, apparently, for decades. They are measuring the same thing and getting different answers.

That's all I was showing. What are you talking about? Do you see this disagreement as regimented, lock step agreement?

Based on cloudy, deceptive propaganda, YOU are recommending that we destroy society and return to an agrarian society devoid of meat, fossil fuels and civilization.

I am recommending that we observe what is actually happening placed in a historical context before we take extreme measures.

At this time, the climate change is not unprecedented, not unusual and not cause for panic. Warming of less than one degree in 2000 years is not runaway change. It's astonishing stability.

The predictions of dire consequence that already should have happened have not happened.

You are gripped by panic caused by nothing.

Visbek · Aug 22, 2019

code1211 said:
Do you have any relevant data to support your assertion?

lol... I've been providing data every step of the way.

In every interglacial over the last half million years, the globe was warmer.

sigh

Again: 1) Not by much; 2) The rise in temperatures is happening about 10x faster than it does with natural climate change; and 3) half a million years ago, there weren't 7 billion humans on the planet. Please try to keep up.

We are warming from the coldest point in this interglacial to an average temperature for this interglacial.

lol, no. Not even remotely close. The "coldest point" in recent eras was the last Ice Age, which started to warm about 17,000 years ago. After hitting a peak around 5000 years ago, temperatures were slowly falling (with the occasional bump up, only to go back to a cooling trend) until roughly 1750... which is when humans really started to produce GHGs in earnest.

This is all obvious from the proxy data -- which, just a day or two ago, you were touting (and conflating with instrumental records. Hmmmm.)

Regarding your prediction of dire consequence, most predictions for extreme warming have been wrong....

You must realize that you're losing this argument, otherwise you wouldn't change the goalposts.

Aside from the fact that Spencer has pretty much zero credibility as a scientist, that specific claim has been thoroughly debunked. The vast majority of the models are designed for scenarios that we know aren't likely to happen -- e.g. RCP 8.5 is based on a very high emissions scenario, which results in higher temperatures. The reality is that projections made as far back as 50 years ago are actually fairly accurate.
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

Visbek · Aug 22, 2019

code1211 said:
The paper linked is counter intuitive.

No, it isn't. I already explained it to you, you just ignored it. We already know that CO2 gets sequestered in various ways that can get unlocked when the temperature warms. E.g. Shakun believes that the slight warming due to orbital changes unlocked CO2 stored in the oceans. Today, we are already seeing the release of carbon, methane and nitrous oxide that was previously sequestered in permafrost.

Finally, regarding that link, it seems to be centered on the CO2 in the Antarctic. It says that CO2 in the antarctic rose before warming elsewhere. Obviously proxy data used here.

Uh, hello? Yes, I told you that Shakun used proxy data from all over the globe. You've been relying on proxy data throughout this entire discussion! You are not scoring any points here, buddy.

The Hockey Stick is a debunked, contrived piece of propaganda.

:roll:

No, it isn't. In fact, its findings were just reinforced. Oh, but that requires paying attention to actual scientists. Never mind.
Current Warming Is Unparalleled in the Past 2,000 Years - Scientific American

The presentation of the various data sources represents only that the experts disagree on what the temperature is right now today. They have, apparently, for decades. They are measuring the same thing and getting different answers.

Nope, wrong, not even close.

When we look at global temperature averages over, say, a 2000 year period, we combine proxy data and instrument data. That is the data, by the way, that you were insisting we should classify as "records" -- even though that's not what the term means. Anyway, temperature measures like PAGES2K extensively document how they work and their data sources.

And again, I just showed you how there is actually very little disagreement between temperature measures. You didn't even try to respond. Epic fail.

I am recommending that we observe what is actually happening placed in a historical context before we take extreme measures.

That's exactly what climate scientists are doing. What they see is that temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate; that increased GHG concentrations result in higher global temperatures; that higher global temperatures have numerous effects, including rising sea levels and further unlocking of sequestered GHGs. Try to pay attention.

Warming of less than one degree in 2000 years is not runaway change. It's astonishing stability.

Hello? McFly? That's not what we are seeing. We've already seen ~0.8C of warming in less than 150 years. Even UAH, the denier's favorite which shows the least amount of warming, indicates a rise of 0.4C in just 30 years! (Again, you would have know that if you bothered to read my post; it's pretty obvious by now that you didn't. Anyway...) That's not normal, it's not natural, and it's not "stable."

Let us know when you can be bothered to remove your head from the sand, and actually pay attention to the science.

code1211 · Aug 23, 2019

Visbek said:
lol... I've been providing data every step of the way.

sigh

Again: 1) Not by much; 2) The rise in temperatures is happening about 10x faster than it does with natural climate change; and 3) half a million years ago, there weren't 7 billion humans on the planet. Please try to keep up.

lol, no. Not even remotely close. The "coldest point" in recent eras was the last Ice Age, which started to warm about 17,000 years ago. After hitting a peak around 5000 years ago, temperatures were slowly falling (with the occasional bump up, only to go back to a cooling trend) until roughly 1750... which is when humans really started to produce GHGs in earnest.

This is all obvious from the proxy data -- which, just a day or two ago, you were touting (and conflating with instrumental records. Hmmmm.)

You must realize that you're losing this argument, otherwise you wouldn't change the goalposts.

Aside from the fact that Spencer has pretty much zero credibility as a scientist, that specific claim has been thoroughly debunked. The vast majority of the models are designed for scenarios that we know aren't likely to happen -- e.g. RCP 8.5 is based on a very high emissions scenario, which results in higher temperatures. The reality is that projections made as far back as 50 years ago are actually fairly accurate.
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

The temperature is rising faster now than in non-recovery years. The obvious question to ask is, "WHY?" You may want to research Krakatoa and Tambora and Nuclear Winter for a hint on this "Why?" Question.

The temperature went down relatively fast and is recovering relatively fast.

Regarding this interglacial, I suppose at the time of the warming out of the glaciation of the last ice age, there were cooler temperatures. I was only thinking of the last 10,000 years or so.

According to the signs recently removed from Glacier National Park, the glaciers there started to form about 7000 years ago. You say this occurred during a period of warming. Interesting departure from logic there...

Interestingly, the folks that posted the Glacier National Park signs were gripped by the panic gripping you. Apparently, their panic was also founded less on fact and more on propaganda.

World wide, glaciers are receding to points last seen 5000 to 7000 years ago. This is actual, real world evidence.

Your sources may all be really "sciencey" and everything, but the temperatures characterize as "run-away warming" stubbornly remain in the cradle of normal climate variation.

Do you wonder at all why the warming characterized as "run-away" is not having the impacts that run-away warming should be having?

Do you ever wonder why the warming in the 1930's, recently downgraded to not so bad compared to 1998 and 2016, caused the Dust Bowl Days and the more recent warming has not?

There are real world facts that counter the propaganda of the propagandists. Why do you ignore it?

Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs | Watts Up With That?

Regarding real world climate change, this is an interesting chart in that it shows the wild and rapid variations recorded by proxies over the millennia. Climate DOES change very, very rapidly and seemingly, always has.

Incidentally, when the Instrument record is included with averaged data tracks from other sources, they all must be assumed to carry the same authority and weight.

Threegoofs · Aug 23, 2019

code1211 said:
The temperature is rising faster now than in non-recovery years. The obvious question to ask is, "WHY?" You may want to research Krakatoa and Tambora and Nuclear Winter for a hint on this "Why?" Question.

The temperature went down relatively fast and is recovering relatively fast.

Regarding this interglacial, I suppose at the time of the warming out of the glaciation of the last ice age, there were cooler temperatures. I was only thinking of the last 10,000 years or so.

According to the signs recently removed from Glacier National Park, the glaciers there started to form about 7000 years ago. You say this occurred during a period of warming. Interesting departure from logic there...

Interestingly, the folks that posted the Glacier National Park signs were gripped by the panic gripping you. Apparently, their panic was also founded less on fact and more on propaganda.

World wide, glaciers are receding to points last seen 5000 to 7000 years ago. This is actual, real world evidence.

Your sources may all be really "sciencey" and everything, but the temperatures characterize as "run-away warming" stubbornly remain in the cradle of normal climate variation.

Do you wonder at all why the warming characterized as "run-away" is not having the impacts that run-away warming should be having?

Do you ever wonder why the warming in the 1930's, recently downgraded to not so bad compared to 1998 and 2016, caused the Dust Bowl Days and the more recent warming has not?

There are real world facts that counter the propaganda of the propagandists. Why do you ignore it?

Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs | Watts Up With That?

Regarding real world climate change, this is an interesting chart in that it shows the wild and rapid variations recorded by proxies over the millennia. Climate DOES change very, very rapidly and seemingly, always has.

Incidentally, when the Instrument record is included with averaged data tracks from other sources, they all must be assumed to carry the same authority and weight.

FYI for non deniers:

This is literally the only mention I’ve seen of this on a non-wingnut site.

Frankly, given the penchant for outright lies on the denier blogs, it’s unclear if 2020 was ever used as a date in interpretive signs.

It’s pretty clear that the actual scientists st USGS who work in the park never endorsed that date, and it’s pretty clear that the Trump admin doesn’t want them talking to the press to explain the science.

Traveler's View: Glacier Science On Ice At Glacier National Park

Jack Hays · Aug 23, 2019

Threegoofs said:
FYI for non deniers:

This is literally the only mention I’ve seen of this on a non-wingnut site.

Frankly, given the penchant for outright lies on the denier blogs, it’s unclear if 2020 was ever used as a date in interpretive signs.

It’s pretty clear that the actual scientists st USGS who work in the park never endorsed that date, and it’s pretty clear that the Trump admin doesn’t want them talking to the press to explain the science.

Here's the on-site video.

Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs

[FONT=&quot]The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Video of the diorama two years ago.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s ‘gone by 2020’ engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”[/FONT]

Visbek · Aug 23, 2019

code1211 said:
The temperature is rising faster now than in non-recovery years. The obvious question to ask is, "WHY?" You may want to research Krakatoa and Tambora and Nuclear Winter for a hint on this "Why?" Question.

:roll:

1) No, volcanic activity is not significant enough to explain decades of fast-rising temperatures.
2) We're not experiencing a nuclear winter.

Regarding this interglacial, I suppose at the time of the warming out of the glaciation of the last ice age, there were cooler temperatures. I was only thinking of the last 10,000 years or so.

You mean, like this?

According to the signs recently removed from Glacier National Park, the glaciers there started to form about 7000 years ago. You say this occurred during a period of warming. Interesting departure from logic there...

:roll:

Congratulations on displaying that you have no conception whatsoever how global temperatures work.

World wide, glaciers are receding to points last seen 5000 to 7000 years ago. This is actual, real world evidence.

Yes, and since that retreat is happening over decades rather than millennia, that's a) an indication that climate change is anthropogenic in origin, b) a major concern, and c) already having visible impacts on the planet.

Your sources may all be really "sciencey" and everything, but the temperatures characterize as "run-away warming" stubbornly remain in the cradle of normal climate variation.

"Sciency?!?" LOL. Since you missed it, I'm the one citing articles published in Nature, and you're the one quoting hacky denier sites.

Do you wonder at all why the warming characterized as "run-away" is not having the impacts that run-away warming should be having?

It IS having those impacts. And they are just starting; it's only been about a decade that the impacts became significant enough for climate scientists to be able to quantify those impacts. Here's another "sciencey" article for you to ignore as an example: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.pdf/2018_Trenberth_et_al-Earths_Future.pdf

Do you ever wonder why the warming in the 1930's, recently downgraded to not so bad compared to 1998 and 2016, caused the Dust Bowl Days and the more recent warming has not?

Do you ever get tired of trotting out denier nonsense?

I don't know how you missed it, but we've seen major droughts and heat waves in recent years. E.g. California has suffered multiple years of droughts, which did not turn the state into another dust bowl primarily because we have the technology to deal with it. Even with those vast improvements, CA essentially drained its aquifers, most likely permanently reducing their capacity by as much as 5%. The southern US has also dealt with severe droughts in recent years. Good to see that you're not paying attention.

Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs | Watts Up With That?

Linking WUWT = instant fail.

Regarding real world climate change, this is an interesting chart in that it shows the wild and rapid variations recorded by proxies over the millennia. Climate DOES change very, very rapidly and seemingly, always has.

LOL

You don't even know what you're looking at. According to that chart, we saw a rise of about 1.5C over the course of 2000 years (at the end of the last Ice Age.) At the right border of the chart, we see the anomalies jump from 0C to nearly 1C in such a short time it isn't even on the chart. Thanks for helping prove my point.

code1211 · Aug 26, 2019

Visbek said:
:roll:

1) No, volcanic activity is not significant enough to explain decades of fast-rising temperatures.
2) We're not experiencing a nuclear winter.

You mean, like this?

:roll:

Congratulations on displaying that you have no conception whatsoever how global temperatures work.

Yes, and since that retreat is happening over decades rather than millennia, that's a) an indication that climate change is anthropogenic in origin, b) a major concern, and c) already having visible impacts on the planet.

<snip>

It IS having those impacts. And they are just starting; it's only been about a decade that the impacts became significant enough for climate scientists to be able to quantify those impacts. Here's another "sciencey" article for you to ignore as an example: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.pdf/2018_Trenberth_et_al-Earths_Future.pdf

<snip>

I don't know how you missed it, but we've seen major droughts and heat waves in recent years. E.g. California has suffered multiple years of droughts, which did not turn the state into another dust bowl primarily because we have the technology to deal with it. Even with those vast improvements, CA essentially drained its aquifers, most likely permanently reducing their capacity by as much as 5%. The southern US has also dealt with severe droughts in recent years. Good to see that you're not paying attention.

<snip>

You don't even know what you're looking at. According to that chart, we saw a rise of about 1.5C over the course of 2000 years (at the end of the last Ice Age.) At the right border of the chart, we see the anomalies jump from 0C to nearly 1C in such a short time it isn't even on the chart. Thanks for helping prove my point.

(post edited for length. Sorry)

*sigh*

Volcanoes have a cooling effect on climate, not a warming effect. Volcanoes could have been one cause of the Little Ice Age. Is very unlikely they contributed to the recent recovery in temperature.

Ignoring actual data does not mean it goes away. We are warming to points last seen 5000 to 7000 years ago. That IS Millennia. Recovering from an anomalous cooling is just that.

God willing, the hurricanes that occur this year will not hit population centers. NOAA used to publish hurricane forecasts annually and they stopped because they were wrong as often as they were right.

California is an irrigated desert. It's always the dust bowl there. Has been for, wait for it, millennia.

Did you read the signs recently removed from Glacier National Park? If you did you might learn something.

The instrument record records climate change differently than do proxies. Instantaneous vs very slow. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, but it is slipping through your fingers.

IF your temperature record graph reflected actual, accurate, usable data, THEN Antarctica would have already melted completely and Greenland would be green.

To help you with your understanding, you might want to read the sign:

National Park Removed Warning Glaciers 'Will All Be Gone' By 2020 After Years Of Heavy Snowfall - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

<snip>

NATIONAL PARK REMOVED WARNING GLACIERS ‘WILL ALL BE GONE’ BY 2020 AFTER YEARS OF HEAVY SNOWFALL

Date: 08/06/19
Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller

The National Park Service (NPS) quietly removed a visitor center sign saying the glaciers at Glacier National Park would disappear by 2020 due to climate change.

Visitor Center at Glacier National Park contains panorama claiming that “computer models indicate that glaciers will be all be gone by the year 2020”
<snip>

Early 2019 UK weather: coldest day in seven years as mercury drops to -14.4C

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

code1211

code1211

code1211

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

code1211

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Jack Hays

Traveler

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

code1211