Global warming is real

[dantes]

Too bad they weren’t all experiencing warm periods at the same time. Otherwise it would have been a global phenomenon.

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

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

The NW Passage was open for a couple of summers in the mid 40s, but that fact was lost in the events of the day.

[Samm]

@dantes

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

I established the context accordingly every time I used one of those time frames. Stop being so obstinently dishonest.

[Ben_Natuf]

apparently, its been open frequently in the last 110 years. thats new to me.

[Samm]

@dantes

Too bad they weren’t all experiencing warm periods at the same time. Otherwise it would have been a global phenomenon.

Did you know that as temperstures are falling in the Northern Hemisphere today that they are warming in the Southern?

[Ben_Natuf]

too bad you’re arguing about weather. i thought we were discussing climate

[dantes]

You re-established the time frame. The context doesn’t change.

[dantes]

Gotcha. Thanks.

[dantes]

We are. I am at least.

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

apparently, its been open frequently in the last 110 years. thats new to me.

It depends on what you call “open” and “frequent,” but you are right, there have been several years where non-icebreaker ships have been able to transit the Passage from ocean to ocean in the last century.

[Ben_Natuf]

no, you’re not, you’re arguing about weather.

There is evidence that it was warmer in the north atlantic region where we have the most data from, there is evidence it was warmer in the arctic, there is evidence it was warmer in the north pacific, there is evidence it was warmer in New Zealand and in China and in the Andes. Unless you have the data showing the actual temperatures from all these places year in an year out, your claim that it was at different times is just something you’re pulling out of the ether.

[Ben_Natuf]

tru dat…

[Samm]

@dantes

You re-established the time frame. The context doesn’t change.

The context of each post stands alone. Why can’t you get that? When I am talking the age of the solar system I am using billions of years. When I am talking climatic epochs, I am using millions of years. When I am talking repetitive cycles within a climatic epoch, I am using 100,000 years. When I am talking hypothetical long orbit celestial masses, I am using thousands of years. Get it? CONTEXT!

[Borgia]

@Ben_Natuf

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

Do you think scientists know of your concerns? Further, why would they need decadal shifts?

[dantes]

I’m not pulling it out of anything. Those peaks in temperature were not simultaneous. When you add up all the anomalies in as many locations as you can, there simply is only a small increase in temperature globally during this time. I posted the graph of the most extensive global temperature reconstruction above. The medieval warm period is a blip on the global record.

[dantes]

The context of each post stands alone? What kind of double speak is this? That doesn’t even make sense.

[Ben_Natuf]

lol… your agw gods routinely use bad proxies.

some good reading here from a more or less neutral site.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/07/26/is-todays-climate-warmer-than-the-medieval-and-roman-warm-periods/

note in reading this that there are “a large and growing archive of studies indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was global and/or warmer than recent decades.”

PLease also link your graphs again, I missed them and would be interested in the graphs and the studies they came from.

[dantes]

That is anything but a neutral site.

The paper is Marcott et al 2013

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235885717_A_Reconstruction_of_Regional_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Past_11300_Years

[Samm]

@dantes

The context of each post stands alone? What kind of double speak is this? That doesn’t even make sense.

It does if you understand the English language. I gave you the context of the time frame I was using in each post. That you refuse to acknowledge that speaks loudly to your lack of honesty.

[Samm]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@Ben_Natuf

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

Do you think scientists know of your concerns? Further, why would they need decadal shifts?

“They” don’t, but you do if you are going to try to make a comparison between temperature rate change thousands of years ago withy the rate of temperature change today. you do.