- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
The Graph was from NOAA. I think you have seen it before.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
I like your little bit of fantasy denial fantasy. Guess what !! Yep According to the creatives who made that up current temperatures are way below the medieval warm period. And since you have chosen to post it I have to assume you believe it is accurate.
So I have to gather that all that effort into showing the mistakes and deliberate misinterpretation of Leohle 2007-8 paper was lost on you ? But my predication on your behaviour was totally spot on. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to show we are now much warmer than than anytime in the last 10,000 years.... it will never be enough.
Cheers !
Clearly one of us is not the full quid on reading articles TS.
Lets be clear about it. Accuweather was only using data from one year to look at the number of record highs and lows. The thrust of his article was trying to understand what he saw as the pause in global warming. This was the clamour of denialists who chose to ignore the steep temperature increases from 1970-96 and then wanted to say "Hey it's stopped . Nothing to worry about folks " during 2005-2012 And on the way lets kick the hell out the climate change models because for the last 17 years the temperature hasn't gone up like they said it would.
But of course since 2014 world temperatures have gone up with a vengeance. In fact they are now sitting at the top of CC models. Does this have any relevance to the discussion ?
LOOK: I'm not saying it won't resume; I'm not saying Global Warming isn't real (although I do believe it's exaggerated by bad sensor locations); I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of the Earth better. What I'm saying is that something happened there and we need to figure out what, because it wasn't predicted by the models (as shown by the graph below, which doesn't even include the last couple years). If we could figure out what happened, it would be awesome because we could change the climate models to give an accurate prediction of the future.
And TS why do you insist of re presenting a graph that isn't even remotely close to the facts ? At least the one you used earlier on was close even if it ignored all the warming of the 20th Century.
Do you seriously expect anyone on the thread with more than 2 neurons operating would accept such a bare faced lie? (If you can find the author I'm happy to research it's origins and creative artiste..)
The researchers argue that “X-ray densitometry” enables a more accurate reconstruction of climate history than does analyzing the width of tree rings – the principal data used by MBH. For example, MBH found a “divergence,” starting in 1960, between a decline in Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as reconstructed from tree ring data, and the increase in Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as measured by thermometers and other heat sensing instruments. The divergence raises the question of how MBH can be so sure the Medieval Warm Period was tiny or non-existent when their proxy data fail to reflect the instrument-measured warmth of recent decades. To give the hockey stick its dangerous-looking blade, MBH had to “hide the decline.”
In contrast, the Esper team found no divergence between instrumental data and temperatures inferred from density analysis of living trees in the study area.
So what’s the upshot? Their reconstruction “shows a succession of warm and cold episodes including peak warmth during Roman and Medieval times alternating with severe cool conditions centred in the fourth and fourteenth centuries.” The warmest 30-year period was A.D. 21-50, which was 1.05 °C warmer than the mean temperature for 1951-1980 and ~0.5 °C warmer than the region’s maximum 20th century warmth, which occured during 1921-1950.
Good chart there TS, thanks for posting.So not wanting to admit you were wrong about the salmon or the mercury thermometers on steamships nor realising you were totally off base on the Accuweather statement you go back to hacking on one graph that goes back for 15,000 years. How many times do you need to be told - open your brain basilio.
Okay ... here is another one to chow down on over 2000 years.
View attachment 67226
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/0...mer-than-the-medieval-and-roman-warm-periods/
Here is a graph for all the people out there with 2 neurons to understand.
View attachment 67227
http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/d775ecf894ab68415ed0108ced31a4e2
Let's get those v8s puping some co2!!!
http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/d775ecf894ab68415ed0108ced31a4e2
Let's get those v8s puping some co2!!!
How can this be?
The climate models didn't say anything about this!
Does this mean that our very own sun is an acc denier?
How can this be?
The climate models didn't say anything about this!
Does this mean that our very own sun is an acc denier?
We are due, mankind could be lucky, yet again. I think it has been eluded to previously.
This also shows that global warming through CO2 is real as though the sunspots have been dropping, and I looked it up, a new low is expected this year, the earth is still warming.
Promises, promises, promises!So we're supposed to be having an ice age every 11 years.
And heat records top end of Australia this month and over the planet first five months (individually) hottest ever recorded.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?