Global warming is real

[Samm]

@dantes

It means there is a well known disconnect between tree ring data and temperature data after 1960 meaning we don’t use it as an accurate proxy after that time.

When you look at just tree rings, you’d think the global temp has declined, but we know that isn’t true.

Hide the decline means obscure the data that we know is incorrect.

What does it mean to you? Specifically that is.

Wrong. The slow down in the rate of warming (the “pause”) since ‘96 (or ‘98, depending on which source you use) has absolutely nothing to do with tree ring data.

[dantes]

Of course you did. It was a discussion about events in the last few million years, then you switched to the last 4 billion years.

It’s not a lack of understanding. There’s nothing to understand other than 2 million is not 4 billion.

[Samm]

@dantes

Of course you did. It was a discussion about events in the last few million years, then you switched to the last 4 billion years.

It’s not a lack of understanding. There’s nothing to understand other than 2 million is not 4 billion.

NO, I did NOT!

Just quit it!

[dantes]

That’s embarrassing. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

It has everything to with tree ring data. The proxies show a decline after a lot 1960. The “trick” is to overlay real temps on the proxy data around this point.

[dantes]

Lol, this is getting sad.

You did. I showed the post where you did it.

[Samm]

@dantes

That’s embarrassing. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

It has everything to with tree ring data. The proxies show a decline after a lot 1960. The “trick” is to overlay real temps on the proxy data around this point.

No it did not. That was the cover story after they got caught.

[dantes]

Oh, and you know the real story I suppose.

What was the trick?

[KLRS]

Just 30 years ago the experts said we were looking at a new ice age coming, now it is supposed to be global warming instead. I guess they are not such experts after all.

[mobulis]

@KLRS

Just 30 years ago the experts said we were looking at a new ice age coming, now it is supposed to be global warming instead. I guess they are not such experts after all.

So you expect perfection then.

[Borgia]

@KLRS

Just 30 years ago the experts said we were looking at a new ice age coming, now it is supposed to be global warming instead. I guess they are not such experts after all.

Even if this were true, your response boils down to; “Science has been wrong so science must be wrong”

[WildRose]

@dantes

My theories? I haven’t made any theories in this thread. All I’ve done is demonstrate that your knowledge in this area is quite limited and that your theories are extremely problematic.

You just say things like “we can’t have any idea what the mass of Scholz’s star” without having any idea if that’s true. That’s an argument of ignorance. You don’t know what the mass is so you can’t see how anyone else would.

But others have figured this out. You just didn’t know it.

There are numerous example of this in this thread.

But you want to claim I don’t understand what I’m talking about despite me repeatedly demonstrating your lack of knowledge.

I haven’t denied any basic laws of physics. I’ve used them (even showing my math) to prove my point. Meanwhile you’re pretending to understand physics while comparing gravity and orbital mechanics to a bungee cord which is probably the worst analogy I’ve seen in quite some time

You just keep making it up as you go along. You don’t even understand the most basic of physical principles relative to the subject.

You keep making things up in attempt to disprove a theory that cannot be disproven and with each attempt it becomes more glaring that you are so far out of your depth here it’s embarrassing.

[WildRose]

@dantes

Yes, the holocene optimum was natural.

We know from historical records, archeology and sediment studies that the medieval and Roman warm periods were localized phenomenon. Small changes in regional climate are not uncommon and they do not compare in anyway remotely with our current warming trend which, on a global scale, far outpaces the rapidly and magnitude of anything warm period mentioned.

That is in no way provable. The accuracy of the historical reconstructions is no where close to the less than 2’ of warming that has been observed in the last 200 years.

The data does not exist that can give us an accurate measure of the rate of warming in previous cycles with even century accuracy much less decadal accuracy.

[WildRose]

The warming of the Roman period was seen mostly in the tropics and Mediterranean, along with southern continental europe.

You are literally all over the map.

[WildRose]

You need to make up your mind. In one post they are local, another regional, and then the entire northern hemisphere was involved.

You are flailing like a drowning man.

[WildRose]

Where do you think they are getting the north pole ice cap data?

[dantes]

Please show me where I said it was the entire northern hemisphere.

Local and regional are synonymous.

[dantes]

I used the plural “they” when I should have said it because I was referring to just the Medieval warm period. The point stands that both warm periods were regional phenomenon and not global warming events.

[dantes]

I understand them very well and you’ve not yet pointed out any mistakes I’ve made.

On the other than, you’ve made numerous mistakes (not that you’d admit it) demonstrating your lack of knowledge in this area.

Despite that, you claim to have superior knowledge.

You’ve gone to great lengths to create at story that is unprovable. In fact, that’s been the goal all along. Produce a hypothesis, no matter how outlandish, that no one can disprove. It’s useless.

All I’ve said is that it’s highly unlikely, and have explained why using data, math and physics.

[WildRose]

@Samson_Corwell

@Richard_Nielsen

Absolutely, our orbit has not ever been perfect, not to mention the one body in our system that effects us the most is ever changing and that is the sun, its gravitational pull on us is not constant. Many things effect our lose wobble around it.

The Sun’s gravitational pull does not vary except over billions of years.

What is a “perfect” orbit? A phrase you just made up?

The effect it has on any given body is limited by the distance between them.

Every body in the system that has mass has gravity and the orbits of all the large objects in the system vary as a result of their proximity to one another including proximity to the sun.

Temporary variations caused by some outside force would eventually settle out as the rest of the system’s stable forces are continuous.

All of the orbits of the planets have eccentricity, all are eliptical, none circular. They also vary their central axis quite a bit moving more in a corkscrew pattern than along a straight line. Those with only one or two large moons will show the most variation along that corkscrew pattern.

The orbits get longer, shorter, wider, more narrow along a pretty well predictable schedule.

[WildRose]

@dantes

Please show me where I said it was the entire northern hemisphere.

Local and regional are synonymous.

The entire northern hemisphere was affected and by no definition are “local” and “regional” synonymous.

Good lord, just quit making things up.