An article about Greenland ice core mentions that the ice core showed cooling at one point while final temperatures were rising. Evidence that there can be local temperature changes which buck the planetary trend. This can be observed in more than one occasion and more than one location.
Condescending? That’s your problem if that is what you think I have been doing. Asking if you don’t understand what a correlation is, when that is what we have been discussing, is hardly critical. It is simply me trying to figure out why you are making this incongruent argument.
The graph that was presented hid nothing. It is clearly from one ice core. It clearly stated that is indicates temperature in years before 1950. It clearly shows the last date is at 95 years before 1950. And the annotations on the graph naming a couple of the warm spells are historically accurate. And anyone who knows anything about ice core proxy temperatures knows that there is a temperature lag in ice from air temperatures. That is why the presented data stops at 95 years before present. Those upper proxy temperatures are not reliable. What is the problem?
And you still have not addressed the fact that ALL ancient temperature estimates are based on proxy data taken at a mere handful of locations around the world. ALL of those data sites have the same limitation as this one core presented in the graph. You act as though the limitations of the graph proves that the world was never warmer than it is today or something.
Those who can critically analyse an article and make a determination that there is very little in that article that is worth much. The article has no merit.
The fact that Western Australia is a State, not a Province has nothing to do with the worth of the article. This is exactly the same as your childish rejection of the article earlier because it said Canberra is in NSW … which technically, it is since the ACT is completely surrounded by NSW. (It is officially an enclave within the State of NSW.) Such silly nit picking absoluteness just makes you looks like you have nothing to say to rebut the informational content of the articles.
It shows a complete lack of knowledge. There are other examples where there is a fundamental lack of knowledge. In short, the article is not worth a pinch of salt.
What don’t you understand about significance? I can go through it for you if you like or just google it and write back here what you find about one data point representing the world.
Go ahead and demonstrate correlation between this one data point and global temps. Calculate the R^2 value. We are waiting. I can help you with R^2 calculations if you are new to it.
ETA: quit strawmanning. Nobody said the earth was never warmer than today.
The simple fact that the authorities are blaming arsonists and dry lightning is no reason to believe that dry lightening and arsonists are responsible apparently.
No, what it shows is that I’m on to your game. You haven’t pointed out any substantive errors in either of the articles that you dismissed because of a nit pick point.
I am perfectly aware of the significance of the single ice core data set in the graph as to relates to the estimate of global temperature, but you seem to be totally oblivious to the meaning of correlation. I repeat, ALL estimates of ancient global temperatures are based on the correlation of the proxy data from a handful of locations around the world that are correlated with actual modern data taken globally. You are arguing with an argument that I am not making.
looks like the idiot dems in senate arent even as stupid as AOC is. all dems voted “present” on this ditz’s “new green deal” procedural vote except for a couple who dared to oppose the speaker (actual speaker. not official joke speaker in name only pelosi) manchin and sinema, who dared to show a sliver of a spark of sense vs partisanship
So you can’t show correlation. Ok. You made the claim that this single ice core data from Greenland correlates with global temps. Yet, you cannot show this to be the case.
