Global warming is real

That’s a fine opinion for you to have. I don’t agree with it but you can have that opinion.

That’s how all proxy data works. It’s compared against contemporaneous data to calibrate it and then that calibration is used going forward(or backward as the case may be).

There is no historical temperature data to compare it to prior to 1650 and none for over 90% of the planet’s surface prior to 1940.

Neither the tree rings, nor the ice cores can give you anything remotely resembling an accurate representation of temperatures within the limits of the claimed warming of the last three hundred years.

It’s not an opinion it’s a fact.

every 100k years for the last 1 million years, but this time its different! i’m sure if there had been scientists the other times they’d have said the same, because they know it happenned, but they don’t know why. they still don’t

and the comparison fails in recent history, thus the “trick”

Any scientist worth their sand will tell you tree rings are the worst of proxies. They have no idea about precipitation so have a very large PoE. Gas bubbles in ice are better, but the deeper the core the more the “temperature” is skewed because of mixing of gasses under pressure. The temperature they report out at depths is not a temp for a year, a decade or even a century, they are millennial averages. Sediments seem to be the most accurate, but there’s just not enough data from them to form the opinions that come from them.

Apparently I was right, you don’t know what data is.

No, it’s an opinion. You find the data unsatisfactory. That’s fine. You have an impossibly high bar for this, which is convenient.

Don’t be ridiculous Sam.

The width of tree rings in a sample is data. Is it not?

I agree. Proxies aren’t perfect but they’re still quite useable.

It actually is different. Variations of eccentricity aren’t as regular as precession or obliquity because it’s influenced by numerous factors such as Jupiter and Saturn.

This last peak of eccentricity was very very modest.

The tree ring data wasn’t given. Neither was any of the other proxy temperature data from any other source. All they gave was the approximate replication of temperature over time that they calculated by reducing and manipulating that data. Results are NOT data.

By the way, estimating temperature from tree ring data is voodoo science. There are simply too many variables in the growth rate of trees.

What do you mean it wasn’t given? Did you expect all the data to be listed out?

Almost all data requires some “manipulation” to be useable.

Pointing out that it was warmer or colder in the past is not saying anything beyond it was warmer or colder in the past. Saying climate changes is only saying that climate changes. No one disputes that and that alone does not refute anthropogenic climate change. The temperature record we have covers the period for which humanity activity has by definition been at a peak. The properties of CO2 are well understood and humankind contribution to altering the mix of the atmosphere is well recorded.

And what factors affect the growth of tree rings?

And that’s pure BS. You cannot demonstrate experimentally that raising CO2 levels is causing any of the current warming.

You cannot demonstrate that the current warming is in any way different from previous cycles using any data that isn’t completely cooked.

No it’s simply a fact. The proxies are not accurate enough to even begin to show we’re any warmer today than during previous cycles at similar periods during the same cycles.

The important demonstration would be how the current warming is like that of the past.

It is… .