It's also worth mentioning that sea level rise has not abated even if surface temperatures have leveled off recently.  Unlike ocean temperature, sea level has been tracked for over a century.  The average sea level rise since 1880 has been found to be about 1.6 mm/year, but since the early 90's, satellites have found sea levels to be rising at the rate of about 3.3 mm/year.  This indicates that the rate of sea level rise has increased significantly since the early part of the last century.

Between thermal expansion and loss of glacial ice, sea level rise is a reliable way to track the overall progress of global warming because it is not much affected by temporary variations in the various cycles affecting surface temperature.  While sea level rise does not prove AGW, it should certainly make us concerned enough to try and determine why the rate has increased so much in the last few decades and not contribute to that increase.

"Over most of geologic history" humans did not exist. Fish etc. can survive fluctuations we cannot. 

guess I could use statistical bias though and 'cherry pick' a nice section to scare the shit out of everyone ...  

Yeah, that first graph is not statistical bias right? I mean, we do not care when the dinosaurs died, and other catastrophes, it's long term, so who cares which species lives and dies. It has been worse sometime in earth's past, so it's all good. Why stop at those millions of years though? Lets go further back when earth was a molten sphere just escaping the newborn sun. That will surely give us a better and more objective picture of what is really going on. 

Your sarcasm isn't really helpful.  I'm not sure why ideologues find it necessary to react in this way.  We don't live millions of years in the past, my "cherry picked" years are the current years that most pertain to us humans living on the planet.  They are the years in which our modern civilization has existed and indicate what we can expect in our current future.  A 500 million year history of water levels just shows that at some times none of the water was trapped in glaciers, though I'm frankly not sure how they came up with changes of +200 to +400m since there is only about +80m of trapped water...maybe they meant feet?  None of this is central to my point, nor was my point to cause fear;  I was just saying the consistent rise in water levels indicates we are in a larger warming cycle, which should be of some concern to us, whether we believe in AGW or not.

We are in a larger warming cycle.  It's called an interglacial.  His second graph shows quite clearly that our rapid rise in sea level today is completely normal.  The only way they obtained such a divergent rate of change was by cherry picking the end points to coincide with periods of rapid rise in between slowdowns.

There are significantly more pronounced changes in sea level just a couple hundreds years back.

In photosynthesis a plant consumes about 3-6% of incoming solar radiation. Forests and plants help lower local ambient temperatures (through shade and transpiration) and trap carbon and don't allow it to enter the atmosphere. Global measurements of temperatures and atmospheric levels of CO2 already account for this. We know the increased heat is trapped and not leaving the system by measuring the increases in surface and air and ocean over decades. Any quenching by plants and trees has already happened a priori and it isn't enough to slow the increase. Planting more forests is one suggestion ("carbon sinks") for dealing with this though.

This might be a stab at it.  Of course, I believe we were a bit further away from the sun 450 million years ago.

Why are you giving photosynthesis lessons to me?  I don't need them.  All the yahoos drawing energy balance diagrams without photosynthesis accounted for need them.

I don't give a flying fuck what the CO2 level is unless it started getting into the several thousand range, at which point I'd have a headache.  It's irrelevant if it doesn't actually cause our warming trend, which clearly is the case.

My position(extremely well researched, unlike some people that never bothered to check the data themselves) is that the accelerated warming trend over the past century is a now 34 year old crock of shit, back when NASA decided to support AGW to prop up their funding.

A history lesson.  Not that you'll bother with things like fact checking me and just assume I'm purposefully misleading you or  ignorant.  Hell, I'm not even sure you guys actually read my posts before you respond to them, you obviously don't read the information you link since most of it is filled with logical fallacies and clearly inaccurate data.

The theory that CO2 was driving the climate, as opposed to the insignificant factor it is, first went mainstream in the 30's, when a rapid warming trend resulted in such calamity as the Dust Bowl Era.  You may have heard of it.  I'm currently living in it, lush, green, quite nice.  Half as much rain as it was getting in the 80's, but still vastly wetter than back then.  It gained some traction for a few years, but unfortunately the damned temperatures fell back off during the 40's and it disappeared into obscurity where it belonged.

In the 70's it started warming again.  In 1988, James Hansen(you know, the guy from NASA?) started pushing the AGW crap.  The US temperature record was rigoriously studied, resulting in findings a year later that there had indeed been dick for an increase over the last century and the theory was nonsense.

In 1999, Hansen publicly admitted that the US was in an 80 year long cooling trend and that there was zero evidence to support a global warming trend.  Once again, Hansen admitted that it was nonsense.  So fell Europe's dreams of the Kyoto Protocol sticking it to the US for not joining them in absurdly poor economic growth.

Unfortunately for NASA, a large part of their budget was monitoring those fucking temperatures, and to keep their budget up they needed a crisis.  So they went along with the IPCC, that stands to get hundreds of billions in revenue every year, if not more, and faked one.

Since then, the past temperature has miraculously decreased.  Everyone not a political hack, that looks at their alterations, says they're bullshit.  Oh look, the guys over at East Anglia faked their tree rings to match it.  Wow, we've been warming rapidly for over a century and no one noticed!

TOB doesn't cut it.  Moved stations don't cut it.  Changing equipment doesn't cut it.  They're clear in the temperature records when you go back and look.  You have normal oscillations and then poof, all of a sudden the graph jumps to another location in conjunction with the change.  They didn't correct those gaps, there weren't that many to correct in the first place.  People weren't fucking stupid just because it was the 30's, they knew how to read a damned thermometer.  They didn't even have a button to clear out, they had a peg to slide back down the thermometer.  It wouldn't have done any good to bother checking the temperature if the peg was still floating on the mercury.

Their first time forging a new temperature record, GISTEMP V2.  They adjusted the entire trend line of the US by simply, and apparently randomly, jacking up records by about two degrees at some point along the way.  They were occasionally where an actual deviation occurred, but they weren't corrections.  They made far larger deviations in most of the records.  I know this because I looked.  At hundreds of them.  I checked a rather large percentage of the entire USHCN at random.  I then checked the GHCN at random for a hundred or so more and found the same problem.  Guys like Watts know this because they looked too.  How they thought they could get away with it was beyond me, but apparently I just wasn't pessimistic enough in my fellow man.  Here we are still having this argument in 2013.

A few years later, GHCN came out with V3 of their protocols.  NASA upgraded their records to GISTEMP V3, the one year magic jumps went away.  The trend lines of individual graphs were all adjusted to match, relatlvely, the worst offenders.  Those stations that were once well positioned, encroached upon by civlization, and showing increasingly positively biased readings over the decades.

This has all been documented, the few stations in the Arctic and Antarctic are the worst offenders, they've been skewed by multiple degrees over the actual readings taken.  Apparently the scientists were too stupid to use a thermometer, so they had to do that to correct for TOB.

I can't imagine a more absurd hoax, but for some reason half the bleeding planet is just a real die hard on this.

Edit:  Zombie, that's way below the belt.  Don't you know that the ice age scare was just the work of a few quacks?  It wasn't really taken seriously!  Pay no heed to salacious proof of the same organizations involved in AGW being in support of that theory then!

Nope.  Making no point at all.  Just serving up what you asked for.  Even the rebuttal says it was 3000 ppm during the ice age.

So 'rock weathering' is the only thing that removes CO2 from the air.  Fancy that.

you pose you prove. None of the 'scientific' claims has turned out to become reality. No proof, but still stating it's true is called 'belief' aka religion.

Now that we know we can just pave the planet over, I guess the problem is solved!

Edit:  While I'm sure the weathering is nice and all, I expect the glaciation had fuck all to do with CO2 levels and more to do with that whole Gondwana moving into a polar position thing.

Ahh...

Venus again.   Gotta love using a planet that's on fire as evidence for CO2 being a greenhouse gas...

CO2 lags temperature, typically by almost a thousand years.  This is admitted.  The AGW crowd pretends it's proof because it was some minor solar variance that caused the initial warming, and the CO2 handled the rest, but of course there's that whole time problem...

Naturally, this means we can blame the Catholics for everything.  Our current warming trend is obviously from all that witch burning we did back in the day, not the current consumption of fossil fuels.

CO2 correlates closely with temperature for a simple reason.  It takes a long time for the ocean to cool off during an ice age, and an equally long time for it to cool off when it ends.  The surface warms much much faster.  Thanks to basic brain dead physics and chemistry, we know that the CO2 capacity of the oceans is inversely proportional to their temperature.

Ice age starts, oceans slowly cool, CO2 gets sucked out of the air, biodiversity plunges off a cliff, CO2 production goes to crap.  Planet enters a state of relatively static production and utilization.  Ice age ends, oceans warm up, puke the CO2 back out, life cycle resumes a more active state of production and utilization.

The actual cause of the ice ages, and the wonderful interglacials, probably being that whole cosmic ray flux thingy.  But hey, it's gotta be CO2, because that would make it our fault.  After all, we can't change our magnetic field variations, or where our planet happens to be in the big picture.  That just doesn't get politicians more money to run their fingers through today.

Edit: You don't need to debunk it.  Water is wet, a guy falls in the ocean.  Does he drown?  Depends on the temperature.

If the planet bakes and everything dies, whether it baked for one reason or another doesn't change that it baked.  One of the undeniable results of the planet baking is the massive stores of CO2 in the ocean being greatly reduced.  Did CO2 cause the warming, or is it simply a symptom?

Just because you can't or refuse to understand does not mean that a cause hasn't been shown.

This explains more about the so-called "lag" that was observed. It's an artifact ...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve

Quote: "But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years."