I appreciate your attempt at peacemaking, but if you have been following the conversation you should be able to see that I’m not the one here who needs to stop.
That is correct, but the site dantes linked does not show the data or even what the proxies were or where they came from or how the computer entry data was generated. What it shows is the computer generated recreation of temperature vs. time using that proxy data.
As compared to what? It’s an inter-glacial period, it’s supposed to warm up.
Is it warmer than we’ve been in previous inter-glacial periods? No, not that anyone can demonstrate.
Why would it matter? Really?
If you can’t compare actual temperatures from all over the globe over a given period in which you’re claiming X amount of warming has occurred your theory is unsupportable.
Neither ice cores nor tree rings nor any of the other proxies we use to reconstruct historical temperature data are reliable enough to say with any certainty that we’ve warmed 3 degrees since industrialization began because they can’t show what the actual temps were prior to industrialization.
This is very simple stuff for anyone that’s actually studied science.
That’s like saying thermometers don’t actually measure temperature they only show how much the media has expanded or contracted.
How much microwave radiation is emitted at a given temperature is understood and is the basis for he satellite temp data.
It’s still a proxy, that’s all.
It’s still data.
Exactly, but that data needs to be interpreted, calibrated, adjusted. Just like proxy data from anything else.
No, unlike the historical proxy data it can be measured in real time and compared against known values and emissions rates.
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.