The source of the data isn’t listed but I think we both know this is based on proxy sources.
Why do you get to use that type of data but I don’t get to?
That seems pretty hypocritical. I’d love to hear your explanation on that one.
(Don’t forget that your claim was about the last three interglacials which were within the last 400,000 years, meanwhile the scale on your graph is on the scale of hundreds of millions of years, so the last three interglacial periods would be a tiny sliver on the right of the graph, so your source is really terrible at demonstrating what your claimed, so be careful when you pick your sources please).
Lacking weather station data going back 500+ years is not really an issue. There does exist a meaningful directly observed temperature record covering several decades and a good geospatial spread. This is sufficient to address climate change. No one dispute it has been warmer at points in the past. The matter at issue is the nature and cause of the currently observed warming which human activity is implicated as the culprit.
Since there were no thermometers for more than 99% of the locations and periods to record the temps you know it doesn’t exist so just admit it and we can move on.
Deflecting from what? The fact that you’re now claiming you didn’t say something that’s there for everyone to see? Or deflecting from the fact that you criticize me for using proxy temperature records when you’re clearly doing the same thing?
I already replied to this. I have nothing further to say. You may reject proxy records but I don’t have to. The idea that a thermometer is the only means to gauge temperature is idiotic.
After this comment, you bizarrely claimed I misattributed your own quote.
You trying to accuse me of deflecting from the topic is, ironically enough, actually you deflecting from the fact that you’re being blatantly hypocritical.
This went about as well as can be expected. You never seem to hold yourself to the standards you demand of others.
Please treat this discussion forum with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.
These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.
Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.
The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.
One way to improve the discussion is by discovering ones that are already happening. Spend time browsing the topics here before replying or starting your own, and you’ll have a better chance of meeting others who share your interests.
I get it. You don’t think proxy temperature records are useful.
Quit attributing things to me I never said.
Once again.
Quit deflecting.
WildRose:
Since there were no thermometers for more than 99% of the locations and periods to record the temps you know it doesn’t exist so just admit it and we can move on.
Pointing out that we have to join your group to see your information is not a nit pick, it’s a fact. You may as well have just told us about it instead of posting the link. It carries the same weight.
If you can’t even show within the margin they are attributing to man’s contribution the theory is unsupportable.
Without accurate measurements of temp’s over the whole time the theory is unsupportable.
If you can’t show that we’ve exceeded the norms of the cycles prior to industrialization, the theory is unsupportable.
The climate has been changing since the planet first cooled and we’ve been going through periodic glacial and warming periods on a fairly regular schedule for 2 million years prior to industrialization.
