There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

[ding]

Global temperatures are rising
The ocean is getting warmer
The ice sheets are shrinking
Glaciers are retreating
Snow cover is decreasing
Sea level is rising
Arctic sea ice is declining
Extreme events are increasing in frequency
Ocean acidification is increasing

Relax. It’s an interglacial period. The previous one was 2C warmer with 26ft higher seas and had 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Relax. It’s an interglacial period. The previous one was 2C warmer with 26ft higher seas and had 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

Some of what he claims are lies others are deceptive as they are very small changes thus no credibility.

 

[Crick]

Comparing a 40 year average to a 5000 year average is moronic. Even if you had actual instrument readings for the 5000 years.

You suggested I break the 5000 year period into 40 year spans, take their averages and take the average of those averages. Guess what you get? The 5,000 year average.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You suggested I break the 5000 year period into 40 year spans, take their averages and take the average of those averages. Guess what you get? The 5,000 year average.

That would be an honest comparison.
What was the 40-year warming from 1940-1980?
Was it more than the 5000-year average?

 

[jc456]

You suggested I break the 5000 year period into 40 year spans, take their averages and take the average of those averages. Guess what you get? The 5,000 year average.

I can’t believe you just wrote that and want the rest of us believe you know science. That’s hilarious what you wrote.

 

[Crick]

ZOOOOOOM right over your head.................... with a sonic BOOOOM following.

Toddserpatriot wrote these words in bottom parts of posts 95 and 96:

and,

That is why I made that post 97.

Yet you completely missed the point of it all despite that it was right there in front of you!!!

SONIC BOOOOOM!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Given the 23-40-fold faster warming observed in the last 40 years than any glacial period warming, in addition to the last 5,000 years of glacial period cooling, GW is not part of our glacial cycle and it is not a D-O Event. It is greenhouse warming acting on increased CO2 produced by humans burning fossil fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Given the 23-40-fold faster warming observed in the last 40 years than any glacial period warming, in addition to the last 5,000 years of glacial period cooling, GW is not part of our glacial cycle and it is not a D-O Event. It is greenhouse warming acting on increased CO2 produced by humans burning fossil fuels.

Given the 23-40-fold faster warming observed in the last 40 years than any glacial period warming,

Why would you include cooling periods in your "any glacial period warming"

 

[Crick]

That would be an honest comparison.
What was the 40-year warming from 1940-1980?
Was it more than the 5000-year average?

Here Todd. Tell us what is wrong with these data

Current climate warming is rapid and occurring on a global scale, unlike past periods of regional climate fluctuations

Although periods of regionally warmer and cooler temperatures have been recorded over the last 2,000 years, the patterns of warming and cooling were not globally coherent. In contrast, the current period of climate warming is unprecedented, occurring simultaneously on 98%^[1] of...

climatefeedback.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here Todd. Tell us what is wrong with these data

Current climate warming is rapid and occurring on a global scale, unlike past periods of regional climate fluctuations

Although periods of regionally warmer and cooler temperatures have been recorded over the last 2,000 years, the patterns of warming and cooling were not globally coherent. In contrast, the current period of climate warming is unprecedented, occurring simultaneously on 98%^[1] of...

climatefeedback.org

Looks like 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Alternating with some 1 step forwards and 2 steps back.

Why would you average all of those together and say, look, our current 3 steps forward (I'm humoring you here) is 10 times faster than the past 2000 years. It's just silly.

Just as it would be silly to look at the cooling in the mid 1400s and say, OMG! It's cooling 7 times faster than the typical change during an interglacial period.

 

[Crick]

Looks like 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Alternating with some 1 step forwards and 2 steps back.

Why would you average all of those together and say, look, our current 3 steps forward (I'm humoring you here) is 10 times faster than the past 2000 years. It's just silly.

Just as it would be silly to look at the cooling in the mid 1400s and say, OMG! It's cooling 7 times faster than the typical change during an interglacial period.

It was YOUR idea to take the means of all those 40 year periods and average them together.

Look at the vertical scale of the graph I just posted. "51-year warming rate". It's exactly what you asked for. And it shows that contemporary warming does not coincide with long term temperature trends.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was YOUR idea to take the means of all those 40 year periods and average them together.

Look at the vertical scale of the graph I just posted. "51-year warming rate". It's exactly what you asked for. And it shows that contemporary warming does not coincide with long term temperature trends.

It was YOUR idea to take the means of all those 40 year periods and average them together.

Well, when you try to compare a 40 year period with a 5000 year period, what is the best way to unstupid your idea?

"51-year warming rate". It's exactly what you asked for

And when you average the 51 year warming periods, you'll see the 10-times faster claim was ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that you're comparing proxies to instruments.

 

[jc456]

It was YOUR idea to take the means of all those 40 year periods and average them together.

Well, when you try to compare a 40 year period with a 5000 year period, what is the best way to unstupid your idea?

"51-year warming rate". It's exactly what you asked for

And when you average the 51 year warming periods, you'll see the 10-times faster claim was ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that you're comparing proxies to instruments.

It’s why he can’t see the error and lies in climategate

 

[Sunsettommy]

It was YOUR idea to take the means of all those 40 year periods and average them together.

Well, when you try to compare a 40 year period with a 5000 year period, what is the best way to unstupid your idea?

"51-year warming rate". It's exactly what you asked for

And when you average the 51 year warming periods, you'll see the 10-times faster claim was ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that you're comparing proxies to instruments.

What is the Proxy RESOLUTION rate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is the Proxy RESOLUTION rate?

All you need to know is 10 times faster.
Or 23 times faster. Or 40 times faster.

 

[Sunsettommy]

All you need to know is 10 times faster.
Or 23 times faster. Or 40 times faster.

If the resolution of the Proxy data is outside the range of modern warming rate the paper is statistical junk.

That is why we need to know what the resolution is.

Did you see this?

"The researchers relied on a database from the international research consortium PAGES (Past Global Changes, www.pastglobalchanges.org), which provides a comprehensive overview of climate data from the last 2,000 years, for their investigation of five pre-industrial climate epochs. In addition to tree rings, it also includes data from ice cores, lake sediments and corals. To really put the results to the test, the team led by Raphael Neukom analyzed these data sets using six different statistical models – more than ever before. This allowed for the calculation of the probability of extremely warm or cold decades and centuries, and not just the calculation of absolute temperatures."

bolding mine

LINK

 

[Billy_Bob]

If the resolution of the Proxy data is outside the range of modern warming rate the paper is statistical junk.

That is why we need to know what the resolution is.

Did you see this?

"The researchers relied on a database from the international research consortium PAGES (Past Global Changes, www.pastglobalchanges.org), which provides a comprehensive overview of climate data from the last 2,000 years, for their investigation of five pre-industrial climate epochs. In addition to tree rings, it also includes data from ice cores, lake sediments and corals. To really put the results to the test, the team led by Raphael Neukom analyzed these data sets using six different statistical models – more than ever before. This allowed for the calculation of the probability of extremely warm or cold decades and centuries, and not just the calculation of absolute temperatures."

bolding mine

LINK

Let me see If I have a grasp on this...

They used the BEST temp reconstruct and its proxies time spans are all over the place. Then they use poor proxies which do not show the global cooling events. I don't have access beyond the paywall so a down and dirty assessment is not possible by me. Looking at the article they cherry picked everything they could which doesn't show the MWP or the LIA.

They used tree ring proxies... these are local to an area...
They used sediment proxies.. These are local to an area as well.
They used the BEST reconstruction which removes the LIA and MWP.


They simply choose the 'data' that would create the basis for the deception. They knew what they were doing. This is a blatant deception by people calling themselves scientists.

It's like playing Yatzze... throw the die in the air.... And they don't tell you they used all different kinds of dice... Talk about a hope and poke garbage paper.

CAN YOU EVEN DERIVE A STATISTICAL AVERAGE with so much deviation? I agree with you Thomas, this looks like a Caeser salad of garbage... Where did they come up with a 51-year data plot point? You can't even compare it to other proxies which average 250 years or more.

 

[Crick]

This is a blatant deception by people calling themselves scientists.

From a retired policeman who pretends to have a PhD in atmospheric physics and runs from any technical discussion claiming that he's being attacked, all the while throwing insults at everyone and everything that interferes with is chosen story. THAT is irony.

Is there anyone here who believes they have evidence that global warming from any cause at any point in the last million years has exceeded the warming rate of the last 40 years. If so, please bring it forward.

And I don't want to hear about D-O events. They were NOT global, usually occurred in 5-year steps and were associated with minor increases in atmospheric CO2. We are NOT experiencing a D-O event.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers need to protest China!

 

[Crick]

The Warmers need to protest China!

This is off topic. I hope you are not attempting to hijack this thread.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show you're sincere about fighting Climate Change and chain yourself to the Chinese Embassy