Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Self evident? You made me say it. God are you stupid.There are no errors in placing greater weight on a temperature reconstruction from the northern polar region. Less moving parts (so to speak) with more consistency because it's from the same region. A region that is the bellwether for climate change on this planet. If you want to see climate fluctuations that's where you need to go. It's self evident.
Yes, it is self evident that if you want to understand climate fluctuations you look at the region where climate fluctuations occur the most.Self evident? You made me say it. God are you stupid.
So, you couldn't find any sort of expert to say what you just said, could you. WHY does that not make you do a little more thinking? We both know why you're sticking with Greenland ice cores. It's time to bite the bullet.
If you're trying to determine the average temperature of the planet - which IS what we were talking about - you do not limit yourself to outliers. Another attempt to deflect the conversation when you cannot answer for your blatant errors.Yes, it is self evident that if you want to understand climate fluctuations you look at the region where climate fluctuations occur the most.
No. That can't really be done. What we can do is to see changes in temperature in regions that serve as a proxy for the planet where climate changes are most likely to occur. The polar regions.If you're trying to determine the average temperature of the planet - which IS what we were talking about - you do not limit yourself to outliers. Another attempt to deflect the conversation when you cannot answer for your blatant errors.
I bet every single person reading this thread is having the same thought. "Why isn't Ding bright enough to realize the problem isn't with the multi-proxy reconstructions, it's his fucking Greenland ice core.No. That can't really be done. What we can do is to see changes in temperature in regions that serve as a proxy for the planet where climate changes are most likely to occur. The polar regions.
Your global reconstructions don't show that 8,500 years of the past 10,000 years were warmer than the last several decades. Northern hemisphere ice cores do.
There are six ice cores. Not one. Why didn't you know that?I bet every single person reading this thread is having the same thought. "Why isn't Ding bright enough to realize the problem isn't with the multi-proxy reconstructions, it's his fucking Greenland ice core.
archiv.klimanachrichten.de
"Our simulations showed that under RCP8.5, by the 2080s Asian Russia would have a milder climate, with less permafrost coverage, decreasing from the contemporary 65 per cent to 40 per cent of the area by the 2080s."
You're off by an order of magnitude. RCP 4.5 gives 2.5C warming by 2100, not after 1,000 years.FAKE NEWS ... RCP8.5 is unrealistic ... even the RCP6.5 is largely abandoned ... sadly, RCP4.5 only gives us a 2.5ºC increase over the next 1,000 years ... and we've seen 1ºC of this warming already ... can we handle another 1ºC? ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
That's quite the distribution of outcomes they have there.You're off by an order of magnitude. RCP 4.5 gives 2.5C warming by 2100, not after 1,000 years.
View attachment 756593
Let us know whenever you have something salient to say.That's quite the distribution of outcomes they have there.
How is it not relevant that their distribution is so incredibly wide and idiots like you keep point to only the "supposed" catastrophic outcome as the only one that exists?Let us know whenever you have something salient to say.
They don't believe sea levels are rising
Sea levels are not rising.
That is why the "warmers" lie about islands in the South Pacific approaching PROF.
If you are just a parrot, please STFU about this subject and let those who understand it debate it...
How much is sea level rising?
<p>Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.</p>skepticalscience.com
Of course you have your own organisation collecting data around the world.
This is your idea of a reference point:LOL.
Why is Plymouth Rock still right next to the ocean as it was 400 years ago??
In 1774, the rock broke in half during an attempt to haul it to Town Square in Plymouth. One portion remained in Town Square and was moved to Pilgrim Hall Museum in 1834. It was rejoined with the other portion of the rock, which was still at its original site on the shore of Plymouth Harbor, in 1880. The date 1620 was inscribed at that time. The rock is now ensconced beneath a granite canopy.
This is your idea of a reference point:
Plymouth Rock - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
View attachment 756864
ROFL
What do you think this is?Global warming is not happening. It's just more of the leftwing crazy.
What I said: leftwing crazy. I suppose you believe men can turn into women, too.
