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

[CrusaderFrank]

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

What?! China is the leading culprit! Let's get 'em!

 

[Crick]

What?! China is the leading culprit! Let's get 'em!

The topic of this thread is evidence that supports AGW. China is not relevant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Proxies aren't that precise. You can't prove that one way or the other.

 

[Crick]

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?

Producing exactly the result I was using via a more complicated means is not going to accomplish anything.

"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.

Please note that all your recent comments regard the plot of warming rates for the last 2,000 years that I posted. You all seem to have forgotten the warming rates provided by NOAA and NASA from which the 23x to 40x figures derive.

How likely is it that a broad range of proxies across a broad range of data would all have a 23 to 40 fold decreased warming rate that NO ONE NOTICED. You are grasping at straws that do not actually exist. My point is made. Current warming more than an order of magnitude faster than any warming seen in the last million years. It is NOT natural, it is NOT glacial cycle. Period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The topic of this thread is evidence that supports AGW. China is not relevant.

Right, they only produce DOUBLE our CO2

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Producing exactly the result I was using via a more complicated means is not going to accomplish anything.

Please note that all your recent comments regard the plot of warming rates for the last 2,000 years that I posted. You all seem to have forgotten the warming rates provided by NOAA and NASA from which the 23x to 40x figures derive.

How likely is it that a broad range of proxies across a broad range of data would all have a 23 to 40 fold decreased warming rate that NO ONE NOTICED. You are grasping at straws that do not actually exist. My point is made. Current warming more than an order of magnitude faster than any warming seen in the last million years. It is NOT natural, it is NOT glacial cycle. Period.

Producing exactly the result I was using via a more complicated means is not going to accomplish anything.

The result would be much different. Obviously.

You all seem to have forgotten the warming rates provided by NOAA and NASA from which the 23x to 40x figures derive.

Stupid numbers are much more impressive when government idiots derive them. LOL!
That's not helping your case.

How likely is it that a broad range of proxies across a broad range of data would all have a 23 to 40 fold decreased warming rate that NO ONE NOTICED.

Huh? This makes no sense.

You are grasping at straws that do not actually exist.

Comparing a very short period of instrument reading (even though global temperature is a bullshit measurement) with a very long period of proxy readings and saying things like 10 times faster is laughable.

My point is made.

Your point is laughable. What was the rate of warming from 1940-1980?
Why aren't you looking at an 80 year period versus 5000 years?
Or a 120 year period? Maybe a 5 year period would be scarier?

7C in 5,000 years is 0.014C/decade
4C in 5,000 years is 0.008C/decade
0.32 / 0.014 = 23 times as fast
0.32 / 0.008 = 40 times as fast

Math like this is stupid. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[jc456]

The topic of this thread is evidence that supports AGW. China is not relevant.

why?

 

[jc456]

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.

why is it you can't prove it is? Nice ploy to throw your dummass claim at the other side and act like you're done. you are insane and I'm being polite.

 

[jc456]

How likely is it that a broad range of proxies across a broad range of data would all have a 23 to 40 fold decreased warming rate that NO ONE NOTICED.

you are comparing Arctic proxies against supposedly global recorded temperatures. One location vs the globe? hahahaahahahhahaahah

Dude, that is the most ludicrous thing done today.

 

[Mac-7]

The evidence that the Earth is warming and carbon dioxide is increasing at rates not seen in millenia is overwhelming. Arguments that such evidence is manufactured are rationally unsound and unsupported by any evidence.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

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

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age." [Emphasis mine]

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 2
Vostok ice core data; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record
Gaffney, O.; Steffen, W. (2017). "The Anthropocene Equation," The Anthropocene Review (Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2017), 53-61.

Why do greenies harass America with this?

China and india are by far the biggest emitters of CO2

 

[Oddball]

The science is settled!!!!!

“It’s amazing that we were so spectacularly wrong about something we should understand really well: the sun,” said Brian Fields, a particle astrophysicist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined

The sun radiates far more high-frequency light than expected, raising questions about unknown features of the sun’s magnetic field and the possibility of even more exotic physics.

getpocket.com

 

[jc456]

The science is settled!!!!!

“It’s amazing that we were so spectacularly wrong about something we should understand really well: the sun,” said Brian Fields, a particle astrophysicist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined

The sun radiates far more high-frequency light than expected, raising questions about unknown features of the sun’s magnetic field and the possibility of even more exotic physics.

getpocket.com

consensus baby!!!! LOL

 

[Sunsettommy]

Notice that Crick completely ignored the RESOLUTION question and the obvious gaping holes of the paper, he doesn't address it either.

 

[jc456]

Notice that Crick completely ignored the RESOLUTION question and the obvious gaping holes of the paper, he doesn't address it either.

yep, as I stated in a previous post. He will never concede to a fact presented to him. He will deflect and lie.

 

[Crick]

yep, as I stated in a previous post. He will never concede to a fact presented to him. He will deflect and lie.

We had a whole fucking thread on this. Have you guys thought you might be beginning to suffer some memory issues?

Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

A suite of notes that attempt to explain or clarify complex climate phenomena, Climate Monitoring products and methodologies, and climate system insights

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Standard error of the mean

The standard deviation measures the precision of a single typical measurement.
It is common experience that the mean of a number of measurements gives a more precise estimation than a single measurement. This experience is quantified by the standard error of the mean.

If each measurement has a standard deviation s and the measurements are all independent, then the mean of the N measurements has a standard deviation s/√N. This quantity is called the standard error of the mean. For a proof of this formula see the tutorial on expectations and estimators .

Thus, for the mean to be ten times more precise than a single measurement, 100 independent measurements need to be taken.

Estimating precision

Expectations and estimators

web.chem.ox.ac.uk

JC can now join SunsetTommy in calling me a liar but never seeming to be able to identify the actual lie I have told.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Right to attacking me..

What is really funny, your so-called scientist picked every proxy and reconstruct that omits the MWP and LIA. This is the epitome of cherry picking.. Why did they do that Crick? There are hundreds of proxies, even though they are regional, which show these events were global. Why did they choose to do that? What specific agenda do they have that they must pick and sort proxies before they compile them? Then they pick a 5 year point plot or is it a 51-year point plot? Not even the spatial resolution that was picked is relevant.

You use the BEST data that has been corrupted and tortured to remove the Items causing your agenda problems, the LIA and MWP. Then you specifically look for proxies which do not show them to support the BEST deception. And all to say, "its warming faster than...."

BEST has tried to do this for five years and each time they are beat down with simple verifiable facts. Here we are again. One more bite at the deception apple.

And just in the last 10,500 years we have exceeded the rate you folks are screaming about, many times.. Greenland ice cores show it, but due to the rapid melt they cause, they cannot get a spatial resolution sample shorter than 20 years. I Find it odd that your folks over at BEST failed to state that problem with proxies and when you claim a 5 year plot point makes it extreme suspect as being garbage. Tree rings are influenced by rain, sunlight, temp, and every other variable making them useless for most proxy work. Sediments are influenced by high runoff and low run off events. Again, a proxy that has, at minimum, a ten-year point plot.

Your claims do not even stand up to basic scrutiny of fact. That one I did learn as a PO and it still carries over into physics.

The holes in this paper are massive. The range of spatial resolutions, from your proxies, makes a plot point of less than 100 years improbable.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This makes the fifth time the folks over are AGW cult central have tried to do this. IT is way past old and unethical.

Just like the 97% lie they cherry picked data and then contorted it for their use. Legates et al exposed the throwing away of over 19,600 paper to focus on just 77 that they cherry picked. They created the deception of 97% by not including over 19.600 papers that did not agree with their point of view.

This paper is a repeat of that unethical and unscientific behavior. It wasn't until they were called out and the facts shown that they had to retract their deception. This one will be no different.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We had a whole fucking thread on this. Have you guys thought you might be beginning to suffer some memory issues?

Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

A suite of notes that attempt to explain or clarify complex climate phenomena, Climate Monitoring products and methodologies, and climate system insights

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Standard error of the mean

The standard deviation measures the precision of a single typical measurement.
It is common experience that the mean of a number of measurements gives a more precise estimation than a single measurement. This experience is quantified by the standard error of the mean.

If each measurement has a standard deviation s and the measurements are all independent, then the mean of the N measurements has a standard deviation s/√N. This quantity is called the standard error of the mean. For a proof of this formula see the tutorial on expectations and estimators .

Thus, for the mean to be ten times more precise than a single measurement, 100 independent measurements need to be taken.

Estimating precision

Expectations and estimators

web.chem.ox.ac.uk

JC can now join SunsetTommy in calling me a liar but never seeming to be able to identify the actual lie I have told.

LOL,

Still can't answer a simple question,

What is the RESOLUTION of the proxy data used in the paper?

Many here are waiting....................

 

[Crick]

LOL,

Still can't answer a simple question,

What is the RESOLUTION of the proxy data used in the paper?

Many here are waiting....................

No one is waiting. I think you can assume that the PhDs that wrote the paper are familiar with high school mathematics.

 

[22lcidw]

Why do greenies harass America with this?

China and india are by far the biggest emitters of CO2

And unfortunately, many other 2nd and 3rd world nations are emitters of excessive CO 2 as per global elites dictums. And we are the suckers paying for the false green technologies that will eventually come however the Prog Socialists need to take credit no matter how many really die.