2146

See, this is a perfect example of your feigned inability to read and comprehend what I have posted. Not only have you chosen to ignore the context of the time frame I am talking about in a particular post … of which I have been very clear on each time I stated a time frame … but you now have conflated “playing stupid” as “being stupid.” I absolutely don’t think you are stupid, but you most certainly playing that game by continuing to deliberately misrepresent what I post by replacing the meaning of my words with your own in your rebuttals. Don’t be dishonest indeed.

2147

obviously shoddy research.

this is brief, but it gets to the gist of it.

I’m fairly certain New Zealand, the Andes and China are not in the N Atlantic region. Those who claim the affect was local are the ones who do not have evidence to back up those claims. They claim it was local by ignoring the studies that show it wasn’t and claiming there is no not enough evidence to show it was global. Some evidence however is better than a total lack of evidence due to a general lack of interest withing the agw community driven by their own narrative of denial about the period.

2148

meant to attach this

2149

Yes, so what is causing the warming today?

2150

From that we can glean that the rate of temperature increase over the last 50 years is probably the greatest in the last 5000. But the same conclusion cannot be drawn from the sketchy data going back 2 million years. The precision and density of the proxy data gets worse and worse the farther back in time it goes, meaning the less capable it becomes to be able to identify short term trends to compare to what is occurring today.

2151

My point is you would not need that much stratification of data. If the data by centuries shows slower warming that today, the decade data doesn’t really matter, does it?

2152

Wait a second. Samm assured me that nobody was arguing for an orbiting body coming near Earth periodically to tug our orbit and effect climate change.

2153

of course it does. the gas mixing in older cores spans millennia, the ones you’re trying to gauge decadal shifts from span centuries. a decadal shift that only lasts for a portion of the time encapsulated would not register true. It is simply not possible to isolate a decadal shift in temperature in proxies that old. They may know the temperature went up, but they have no idea exactly when and no idea how fast nor do they have any idea as to duration. They may know it was generally 1 degree warmer over the period encapsulated but they don’t know if the temperature shot up 2 degrees and then back down, they don’t know if it was 2 degrees warmer for 50 of those years and 1 degree cooler for another 50. There is no way of knowing, it is unkowable.

2154

Interesting. Have you analyzed the data to see if they have the sort of variation (shooting up, down) that you are proposing? Odds are good that they would see that. Regardless, with more data, those sorts of variations are smoothed out to get longer term averages and trends.

Do you think the climate researchers have thought about your concern at all?

2155

Whatever you think of climate change, can we all just agree that life would be better if we all drove these

2156

The Northwest Passage is not in the North Atlantic. The Roman and Medieval warm periods may have been regional, but only if you consider the Northern Hemisphere a region.

2157

I think that’s called weather and the seasons. :stuck_out_tongue:

2158

odds are not good that they would see it because its not possible to see. those little slivers they shave from cores do not represent a moment in time. because of pressure and mixing the deeper (and older) the core sample is taken from the more time is encapsulated in the sliver of core. the oldest ones represent millennia. the ones we’re talking about would represent centuries. they cannot be divided further so there is no possible way to determine decadal shifts from them

2159

It was regional. Global reconstructions of the climate during the time indicate there was a small warming trend but not anywhere near the scale of what we were seeing.

2160

I’m not replacing the meaning of your words. Million means one thing and billion means another.

2161

false. is the NW passage open today? it was then.

2162

Context Dantes … context.

2163

Today? Not sure. It was open frequently in the last decade.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/northwest-passage-clear-ice-again-2016

2164

the northern hemisphere, new zealand, australia, china… this are well known north atlantic outposts

2165

The context was a NEO affecting our climate two million years ago. The context didn’t change.