Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

[Crick]

And its relevance to the thread topic?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Suggesting that a measurement from one location can be construed to be global is a logical fallacy of the first order. You fail.

That's the entire basis of your Moonbat Fundamentalist Doomsday Cult! You take Mann's one tree ring and make a hockey stick from it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Suggesting that a measurement from one location can be construed to be global is a logical fallacy of the first order. You fail.

^ Points to the Weather in a city as global, yet decries generalization as a fallacy when it fails their failed theory.

Priceless

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Warmists focus on a short time frame, usually 1979 onward to whine about low sea ice cover in the Arctic, which is why they look foolish when the REST of the Holocene gets brought up.

No Tricks Zone

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

EXCERPT:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

LINK

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

Now that is about as dumb of a start to a paper as I have ever seen. Not going to waste my time reading trash like that. First, you don't give sea level anywhere as 'two miles down', you give it in vertical meters or feet. And you identify exactly where the measurements were taken. No Tricks Zone is a liars site, in any case.

Shocking. Only papers they fit your theory get peer reviewed.

Sounds like a cult

In the pro AGW world...peer reviewed is the equivalent of a group of men simultaneously giving each other hand jobs.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Suggesting that a measurement from one location can be construed to be global is a logical fallacy of the first order. You fail.

Except he didn't. Not from what I could read.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Got some sun today.

Yes, it's almost summer.

Is this the year e burst into flames ?

 

[Crick]

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

Where in this quote, the entirety of the lead post in this thread, does it state that "Modern coastlines" is actually a single location in the UK". Every implication is given that these contentions are global.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

Where in this quote, the entirety of the lead post in this thread, does it state that "Modern coastlines" is actually a single location in the UK". Every implication is given that these contentions are global.

One location moved 2 miles inland for no apparent reason.

Good answer!!

 

[Crepitus]

Old Rocks writes,

"Now that is about as dumb of a start to a paper as I have ever seen. Not going to waste my time reading trash like that. First, you don't give sea level anywhere as 'two miles down', you give it in vertical meters or feet. And you identify exactly where the measurements were taken."

This statement below was written by Kenneth Richards, NOT from any science paper:

"During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

He then go to the BBC link to back his statement up.

“An archaeological dig at a Kent fort has uncovered the coastline at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD – two miles from today’s shore.”

Kenneth wrote it correctly,

"Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD"

bolding mine

You are a poor reader...........

If you think an observation like that, in one location with no mention of subsidence or uplift, has some significance on a global scale, it is you that is poor and in multiple regards.

Gee you are a poor reader too since I NEVER said anything about it being a representative evidence of a world sea level. It was about a LOCAL change that is quite dramatic. It was a simple report, which can be found in more detail HERE showing the map of the area and that the CHANNEL silted up, which is a major cause on why the ancient coastline vanished.

The whole premise of the linked article is that it is representative of the global sea level. That's the point the liars, sorry, I mean the authors are trying to make, and the point you were pushing when you posted this.

Dishonesty seems to be the main climate denier trait.

 

[Sunsettommy]

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

Where in this quote, the entirety of the lead post in this thread, does it state that "Modern coastlines" is actually a single location in the UK". Every implication is given that these contentions are global.

I was only talking about a SINGLE location, which I made clear more than once.

It is clear you didn't read the link in post one because it talked about WHY sea levels were higher 2,000 years ago than now. If you have bothered to read, you would have learned that there were a lot less ice on the planet then in part because it was warmer than now.

The title of this thread you comically ignored to focus on a single location actually talked about, the main point was far less sea ice then than now.

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

 

[Crick]

You did NOT make that clear in the lead post. Why did you pluralize "modern coastlines" and "surface air temperatures"?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Old Rocks writes,

"Now that is about as dumb of a start to a paper as I have ever seen. Not going to waste my time reading trash like that. First, you don't give sea level anywhere as 'two miles down', you give it in vertical meters or feet. And you identify exactly where the measurements were taken."

This statement below was written by Kenneth Richards, NOT from any science paper:

"During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

He then go to the BBC link to back his statement up.

“An archaeological dig at a Kent fort has uncovered the coastline at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD – two miles from today’s shore.”

Kenneth wrote it correctly,

"Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD"

bolding mine

You are a poor reader...........

If you think an observation like that, in one location with no mention of subsidence or uplift, has some significance on a global scale, it is you that is poor and in multiple regards.

Gee you are a poor reader too since I NEVER said anything about it being a representative evidence of a world sea level. It was about a LOCAL change that is quite dramatic. It was a simple report, which can be found in more detail HERE showing the map of the area and that the CHANNEL silted up, which is a major cause on why the ancient coastline vanished.

The whole premise of the linked article is that it is representative of the global sea level. That's the point the liars, sorry, I mean the authors are trying to make, and the point you were pushing when you posted this.

Dishonesty seems to be the main climate denier trait.

Ah no here is his exact words:

"During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

You did NOT make that clear in the lead post. Why did you pluralize "modern coastlines" and "surface air temperatures"?

Another evidence that you are a POOR reader since it was KENNETH RICHARDS who made those statements, I never said that:

"By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

You already forgot what I wrote at post 20.

You are so bad at this.....................................

 

[miketx]

Warmists focus on a short time frame, usually 1979 onward to whine about low sea ice cover in the Arctic, which is why they look foolish when the REST of the Holocene gets brought up.

No Tricks Zone

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

EXCERPT:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

LINK

Nobody knows jack shit about the ice 2000 years ago.
9000 years, LMAO!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warmists focus on a short time frame, usually 1979 onward to whine about low sea ice cover in the Arctic, which is why they look foolish when the REST of the Holocene gets brought up.

No Tricks Zone

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

EXCERPT:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

LINK

Nobody knows jack shit about the ice 2000 years ago.
9000 years, LMAO!

Actually there are sufficient evidence, the main problem is RESOLUTION of the data as it is all PROXY based data, which depending on the chosen proxy, have different measured resolution levels to base their research on.

That is why errors bars usually get bigger the further into the past you go.

 

[miketx]

Warmists focus on a short time frame, usually 1979 onward to whine about low sea ice cover in the Arctic, which is why they look foolish when the REST of the Holocene gets brought up.

No Tricks Zone

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

EXCERPT:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

LINK

Nobody knows jack shit about the ice 2000 years ago.
9000 years, LMAO!

Actually there are sufficient evidence, the main problem is RESOLUTION of the data as it is all PROXY based data, which depending on the chosen proxy, have different measured resolution levels to base their research on.

That is why errors bars usually get bigger the further into the past you go.

There is no data for 2000 years ago.

 

[Crepitus]

Old Rocks writes,

"Now that is about as dumb of a start to a paper as I have ever seen. Not going to waste my time reading trash like that. First, you don't give sea level anywhere as 'two miles down', you give it in vertical meters or feet. And you identify exactly where the measurements were taken."

This statement below was written by Kenneth Richards, NOT from any science paper:

"During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

He then go to the BBC link to back his statement up.

“An archaeological dig at a Kent fort has uncovered the coastline at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD – two miles from today’s shore.”

Kenneth wrote it correctly,

"Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD"

bolding mine

You are a poor reader...........

If you think an observation like that, in one location with no mention of subsidence or uplift, has some significance on a global scale, it is you that is poor and in multiple regards.

Gee you are a poor reader too since I NEVER said anything about it being a representative evidence of a world sea level. It was about a LOCAL change that is quite dramatic. It was a simple report, which can be found in more detail HERE showing the map of the area and that the CHANNEL silted up, which is a major cause on why the ancient coastline vanished.

The whole premise of the linked article is that it is representative of the global sea level. That's the point the liars, sorry, I mean the authors are trying to make, and the point you were pushing when you posted this.

Dishonesty seems to be the main climate denier trait.

Ah no here is his exact words:

"During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

You did NOT make that clear in the lead post. Why did you pluralize "modern coastlines" and "surface air temperatures"?

Another evidence that you are a POOR reader since it was KENNETH RICHARDS who made those statements, I never said that:

"By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

You already forgot what I wrote at post 20.

You are so bad at this.....................................

One hack takes one local measurement and extrapolates it to the whole world.

What's your point?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Old Rocks writes,

"Now that is about as dumb of a start to a paper as I have ever seen. Not going to waste my time reading trash like that. First, you don't give sea level anywhere as 'two miles down', you give it in vertical meters or feet. And you identify exactly where the measurements were taken."

This statement below was written by Kenneth Richards, NOT from any science paper:

"During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

He then go to the BBC link to back his statement up.

“An archaeological dig at a Kent fort has uncovered the coastline at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD – two miles from today’s shore.”

Kenneth wrote it correctly,

"Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD"

bolding mine

You are a poor reader...........

If you think an observation like that, in one location with no mention of subsidence or uplift, has some significance on a global scale, it is you that is poor and in multiple regards.

Gee you are a poor reader too since I NEVER said anything about it being a representative evidence of a world sea level. It was about a LOCAL change that is quite dramatic. It was a simple report, which can be found in more detail HERE showing the map of the area and that the CHANNEL silted up, which is a major cause on why the ancient coastline vanished.

The whole premise of the linked article is that it is representative of the global sea level. That's the point the liars, sorry, I mean the authors are trying to make, and the point you were pushing when you posted this.

Dishonesty seems to be the main climate denier trait.

Ah no here is his exact words:

"During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

You did NOT make that clear in the lead post. Why did you pluralize "modern coastlines" and "surface air temperatures"?

Another evidence that you are a POOR reader since it was KENNETH RICHARDS who made those statements, I never said that:

"By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

You already forgot what I wrote at post 20.

You are so bad at this.....................................

One hack takes one local measurement and extrapolates it to the whole world.

What's your point?

If you had bothered to read the link you would not have made that statement, I am laughing at your obvious disdain in learning anything.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warmists focus on a short time frame, usually 1979 onward to whine about low sea ice cover in the Arctic, which is why they look foolish when the REST of the Holocene gets brought up.

No Tricks Zone

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

EXCERPT:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

LINK

Nobody knows jack shit about the ice 2000 years ago.
9000 years, LMAO!

Actually there are sufficient evidence, the main problem is RESOLUTION of the data as it is all PROXY based data, which depending on the chosen proxy, have different measured resolution levels to base their research on.

That is why errors bars usually get bigger the further into the past you go.

There is no data for 2000 years ago.

There is data going back MILLIONS of years,

 

[miketx]

Warmists focus on a short time frame, usually 1979 onward to whine about low sea ice cover in the Arctic, which is why they look foolish when the REST of the Holocene gets brought up.

No Tricks Zone

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

EXCERPT:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

LINK

Nobody knows jack shit about the ice 2000 years ago.
9000 years, LMAO!

Actually there are sufficient evidence, the main problem is RESOLUTION of the data as it is all PROXY based data, which depending on the chosen proxy, have different measured resolution levels to base their research on.

That is why errors bars usually get bigger the further into the past you go.

There is no data for 2000 years ago.

There is data going back MILLIONS of years,

BullSHIT!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warmists focus on a short time frame, usually 1979 onward to whine about low sea ice cover in the Arctic, which is why they look foolish when the REST of the Holocene gets brought up.

No Tricks Zone

Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

By Kenneth Richard on 26. April 2018

EXCERPT:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years

During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today.

LINK

Nobody knows jack shit about the ice 2000 years ago.
9000 years, LMAO!

Actually there are sufficient evidence, the main problem is RESOLUTION of the data as it is all PROXY based data, which depending on the chosen proxy, have different measured resolution levels to base their research on.

That is why errors bars usually get bigger the further into the past you go.

There is no data for 2000 years ago.

There is data going back MILLIONS of years,

BullSHIT!

I never said they are instrumental data, it is PROXY data which we have a lot of.