What are you trying to show from 400k years of data?
You remind me of the movie “50 First Dates”.
As many times as we’ve had this conversation why should we have to repeat it?
If you’re not going to remember it tomorrow what is the point?
1 Like
My thoughts exactly. In trying to show how today’s temps diverge from the trend one doesn’t need to go back 400k years.
From NASA, who I tend to trust more than anonymous internet posters:
Of course, and it’s only a blink in time, when referring to our planet’s climate history. The 1855 graph is the time period the disingenuous global warming enthusiasts always love to cite, since it starts at the end on the Little-Ice Age, just when the planet started on it’s current warming trend. This way the disingenuous warmists can cause people to panic about catastrophic man-made global warming.
2 Likes
Of course it does since you have no accurate way to represent historical temps you cannot possibly show that we’re outside of the bounds of the previous inter glacial cycles. If you can’t, then you can’t possibly show that man is responsible for even a significant portion of the warming that’s occurred since industrialization began.
There has been a rising temperature trend during every previous inter glacial cycle, hence the glaciers receded and many disappeared only to reappear and grow again once that tipping point was reached and the trend began to decline.
NASA has no possible way to measure accurately any differential in temperatures today vs then.
We only have accurate global temperatures for the last forty years or so since the launch of the first satellites to measure them. We didn’t even have thermometers in wide distribution across most of the globe until after WWII.
No, the warming enthusiasts including scientists are saying that the majority of the human-induced global warming has been seen in the years AFTER 1855 to today…which conveniently does NOT show up on your graph.
The mechanisms causing glaciation are understood and have been modeled. They do not account for today’s warming.
No evidence shows “human-induced global warming.” That graph only shows conjecture, backed up by science and put together with theories to explain the ice found from drilling.
They are nothing but theories, and every decade or so, new theories pop up to either reinforce or discount previous theories, or present new theories.
What? You think we are ignorant of the causes of temperature cycles? Really?
I particularly like the “… was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere.“ part. 
It’s not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of the proxy data obtained from that specific ice core. The core was drilled in 1950, but the first usable data was 95 years down from the surface.
Something they cannot possibly show to be true because none of their proxies nor all of them combined have that kind of sensitivity.
Did I say that, no.
It was not all that long ago when the consensus of scientists was that asteroids and comets could not impact the earth, that they would break up into tiny pieces. Now you cannot find a scientist who holds to that theory. The same goes for science not understanding effects of volcanic eruptions.
And as far as I have read, there is still debate on how well preserved that data stored in the ice is. Exactly how reliable the gases and particles represent the original composition of the atmosphere of the past. Exactly which year does the small bubble represent?
It’s my understanding that many feet of an ice core sample are used to provide enough gasses. How many years, decades or centuries did it take to represent the data? All we can do is compile data from many other sources, like tree rings, soil samples from above ground and under oceans, and then make an educated guess.
Yeah, we know. But a graph used to dispel AGW should actually…you know…show data over the range that the bulk of the alleged warming occurred. Otherwise it is fairly meaningless.
Agreed, there is some error year to year. And I think the deeper one goes the less reliable it becomes (if I recall correctly). So they limit the range of years that it would be considered reliable. And they cross reference with other cores.
AGW caused by human induced CO2 being blamed for warming and climate, and weather, and well, everything not perfect in the world today, is only a theory.
Dispel? No. Question? Yes.
