Must you intentionally find graphs that don't have any relevance to the word recent? This shit was old ten years ago.
You can't prove AGW by looking at the last century, and then using the last ten thousand years or better to show that it's something new. You can't even see the warming trend on those other scales. Everything is just a straight line up and down.
These are the only graphs available directly from what appears to me to be the official GISP2 site.
You want me to look at something else fine I'll check that out but one thing to note is that none of the GISP2 data gives you anything like a direct temperature graph. They give you things that can be measured that are in some unspecified way converted into a temperature plot. This undoubtedly requires the kinds of "adjustments" and "weighting" of data that you seem to find so objectionable when applied to the instrumental record. No big deal but I'm just pointing out a certain amount of hypocrasy that you accept an ice core temperature reconstruction which require far more manipulation than simple "adjustments" of surface stations. But I digress.
Clonmac even pasted the two thousand year scale during his bout of severe idiocy. That's a useful scale for looking at recent climate behavior in comparison to previous cycles. Go here and play with it.
OK. This is what Clonmac posted earlier.
When you're done, explain how Antarctica being a whopping half a degree higher since the start of the industrial age is in any way a new thing when it's shifted six times as fast in the same span just a couple hundred years before man was playing with fossile fuels and without any change in the level of CO2.
I can't explain it because in fact it makes no sense. I think this was what Clonmac was saying. The CO2 graph seems reasonable but the temperature graph does not. There is no given source for this temperature graph nor does it look like any graph that I've seen before.
The only conclusion that I can take from this is that this unattributed temperature graph is totally bogus and hence no legitimate conclusions can be made from it. Given that this is from a denier site this should not be surprising.
*If* I were to accept this temperature graph as accurate (which I don't) then I would have to conclude that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Then check out Greenland again here, you know, a scale with some relevance to recent "unnatural warming trends" that you seem to think we're undergoing.
I assume you mean this graph which again given that it's source is a denier site it's validity is in question.
I see where you're talking about the 1920's however the problem again is the graph. The following graph is from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Greenland.multi.pdf and shows no such increase in the 1920's. The problem is you accept unattributated graphs posted on denier websites as truth.