Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
exactly! Oh my... does this mean you've dropped your HoloceneMan act? That we'll never read you again bringing forward mention of the Holocene Optimum?
DuhSleeper! Try a googly on the debunking of that POS! :mrgreen: Given the profile it received, it rightly deserved the thrashing it received! Is it any wonder you... you... would hold it up as some testament to "accuracy/truth/authority"!
it appears quite a bit... not even guys who play at being fake-scientists on CC can manage to even put a dent into it!
then answer the questions you keep avoiding... is there a problem for you?
still waiting HoloceneMan... still waiting! :mrgreen:
it's the typical year-to-year re-growth of first-year ice... that, in turn, is the first ice to melt in the subsequent melting phase. As I answered your question, care to comment on the fixation with a single year (extent only), while ignoring the massive loss of ice over the decades... while refusing to acknowledge the long-term melting trends, both extent and volume?
you really want to say something about the 'Holocene optimum'... why not just say it? Why are you such a tease? :lol: By the by, what was the cause(s) of warming during that period... and how does that apply in relation to today's relatively recent warming?
the same questions await you.... why are you avoiding them? You so are the HoloceneMan, yet you refuse to answer my questions concerning the causal tie to Holocene Optimum warming and how you believe that correlates with today's relatively recent warming. Why are you so deflecting of those questions? Just answer them, HoloceneMan!
Hey now, oh my, oh goodness, garsh darn it.
Your's is the official graph?
Do you know what the Holocene is?
Your's is the official graph?
Do you know what the Holocene is?
On purpose? I grabbed the Wikipedia one. Go swap mine out for your's on Wikipedia if you feel it is better or the one used on there is jaded.
you just happened to miss the caption? You didn't like my image... the one from PNAS? Just answer the questions poser, just answer them!
There are oodles of graphs. That is why you can't argue using graphs and why people make fun of you for using graphs.
no - and I just made fun of you for the graph you tried to pass off as an accurate reflection. You're nothing but a poser too afraid to actually answer a few questions that would expose your charade.
and yes, graphs can be used to argue... like this one following since you seemed to like a Greenland regional focus... GRIP vs. GISP2, hey!
