That’s what data is … the numbers you use to reach your conclusion. Your source only gives the conclusion, not the data.
And I know what manipulation is, and saying that data is manipulated is not a bad thing, it’s a normal function of number crunching, particularly when using different proxies to approximate a completely different set of numbers.
In terms of cause.
It’s not just the accuracy of the proxies, it is also a matter of data density. The bulk of ancient proxy temperature data comes from Antarctica, Greenland and a handful of thick sediment locations on continental shelves, at a frequency of one or two values per year at best, and the density (and accuracy) goes down dramatically the farther back in time they go.
Today we have precision data from hundreds (tens of thousands, if you count satellite data) of locations all over the globe, taken hourly (or more) each day, 365 days a year. There is no real comparison. That’s why any graph depicting temperature going back hundreds of thousands of years has degraded resolution prior to about 1850 and the error bars grow as you go back in time.
You can’t show cause since we’re repeating the same cycle just as we have four previous times on roughly the same timescale.
In order to show cause you have to demonstrate this cycle is in any way substantially different than previous cycles.
No argument from me. This goes right to the same point I made about recorded temps.
We’ve only had accurate thermometers since 1650, only a handful of those in circulation in the then “known world” prior to 1700, and none for about 90% of the surface of the planet prior to 1940.
There isn’t enough accurate data to draw any conclusions from and certainly not to determine that we’ve exceeded the norms of previous cycles nor that CO2 is the driver.
Ok, it’s a cycle. Then what was the cause of that cycle the previous four times?
Well, it certainly wasn’t industrialization.
The climate is far too complex to narrow it down to a single or even several factors.
Well the climate does not warm up because the clock says so. If one cannot say why it warmed in the past and demonstrate that’s the reason it is warming now then the “it is a natural cycle theory” looks very weak.
There is a difference between “because of the clock” and “like clockwork.” Look at any graph by a reputable source of the estimated temperature for the last 600,000 to 2 million years and you will see a pattern of approximately 100,000 year long cold periods interspaced by approximately 10,000 year long inter-glacial periods … repeating “like clockwork.” We are currently in the 12th millennium of the most recent inter-glacial warm period (aka the Holocene)
Has a cause for previous warming cycles been identified and does that Sam cause apply today’s?
Not only is Global Warming real it is a National Emergency!
Thats like the Mayan and Aztec Calendar. Why is the world still here?
America Bad, China good. At least to the Dem politicians
Even though China has a much larger Carbon footprint and
puts out more emissions than any other country in the world.
The Dems don’t have a logical leg to stand on.
When the cycle has been repeating for 2 million years, only a fool would gamble on it not repeating, regardless of the cause.
The end of the Mayan calendar did not signify the end of the world, it signified the end of their calculation of future days.
Agreed. But we are men of science, right? It would behoove is to determine causes of previous arming periods, which we have done, and determine if those same forces are acting today, which we have done. No, orbital forcing is not warming us today.
It doesn’t leave AGW solely but it certainly is a prime suspect, wouldn’t you agree?
Thats funny Samm. Im sur eyou know all about them
As a graduate student I taught my undergrads how to read Maya numbers, Base eight if I remember. I can’t read the glyphs, but some of my colleagues can.
The colors that you see on a screen are determined by the octal RGB system. Those Mayans were on to something.
Don’t really care about the splitting hairs over the nuance of ‘clock work’. What is the mechanism and the evidence for it beyond ‘its that time again’?
