Once you figure out how to put an image in a post, and (more importantly) provide a link to your source(s), we can take a look at the science supporting your position.
Sorry but still don't know how to post charts or graphs in this forum. I'll just cite the website link. Also just google search " temperature last 2,000 years" and "holocene temperature chart" and click "images" and you'll see how obvious it is that temperature fluctuates on its own without CO2 influence. CO2 does not drive temperature on planet earth. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the second chart that is easier to connect. During the holocene (last 10,000 years), temperature fluctuated by more than 10 degrees C in cycles if 3,000 years, 1,500 years and 750 years. CO2 had nothing to do with the fluctuations.
You can't possibly be so fucking stupid that you can't copy and paste a hyperlink:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04...les-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
The blogger, conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts, doesn't actually cite the source of this graph, but I found it:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
Ole Humlum, the creator of climate4you.com, provides this caption:
Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2record ends in the year 1777.
You'll find that, contrary to the citations, the first graph does not appear in Alley and the second graph does not appear in Monnin et al:
The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewedfrom central Greenland
Alley, 2000
http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-...rval as viewed from central Greenland QSR.pdf
Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores
Monnin et al 2004
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11753888.pdf
These citations are meaningless: Humlum has simply cherry-picked two sets of data, created his own graphs, and claimed that there is a meaningful relationship between the two where none exists. The citations exist solely to create the facade of credibility.
There are several problems with your source:
1. It doesn't support your claim that "temperature fluctuated by more than 10 degrees C in cycles if 3,000 years, 1,500 years and 750 years". In fact, your claim bears such little resemblance to the graph that I doubt I am looking that the right one, which is why you need to learn one of the most basic skills of computing and paste a fucking link to your source.
2. Humlum is clearly cherry-picking his data to support a conclusion. NOAA measure air temperature and CO
2 at dozens of sites around the world, but he has selected one of each, on opposite sides of the world from each other, in order to misrepresent the data to suit his desired conclusion.
3. The graph is falsely labelled "Approximate global temperature anomaly". It's not; it's just data from a single ice core.
Ole Humlum is one of the small minority of climate scientists who are skeptical of the effects of CO
2 on the atmosphere. Humlum published a paper arguing that climate change could be explained by solar and tidal forcing, but Humlum's evidence is extremely bare and the theory lacks widespread support.
Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change
Humlum, Solheim and Stordahl
http://klimarealistene.com/web-cont...lumEtAl GlobalAndPlanetaryChange 1012pdf.pdf
Humlum puts a lot of content on his website, but practically none it can be found in peer-reviewed journals. By self-publishing on his website, Humlum bypasses the peer-review process which prevents junk science (like the graphs above) from being published.
- - - Updated - -