Pho Huc wrote on Nov 17^th, 2019 at 4:21pm:



How much is natural variation and how much CO2 induced Climate Change AGW?

Pho Huc wrote on Nov 17^th, 2019 at 4:21pm:


Is it?

Do you mean the Marcott reconstruction of the last 11,000 years?



How about his response to the "uptick?

"Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Or perhaps you meant some other paper?

Johnnie wrote on Nov 17^th, 2019 at 7:22pm:



So now you are scared of glaciers?

Be afraid be very afraid. The glacier monster is coming to get you.

Pho Huc wrote on Nov 17^th, 2019 at 9:08pm:



You do know proxy data is not that precise don't you? A whole degree? You do know science measures it in Kelvin?

So from 286 Kelvin to 287 Kelvin is pretty damn small.

Edit: Did you also know Phil Jones CRU East Anglia admitted that the Southern Hemisphere temperatures for the ocean was mostly made up. So we have a reasonable coverage of NH and poor coverage of SH up until about 1950 according to Phil and then that is merged to make an average temperature for the earth going back to the 1880's in some cases though some claim 1850's.

"Below is an actual e-mail conversation between the Climate Research Unit’s Phil Jones and climate scientist Tom Wigley.  Phil Jones is the one who is largely responsible for making up the 1850-present temperature data for the Met Office in the UK (HadCRUT).

Johnnie wrote on Nov 17^th, 2019 at 9:50pm:



No petal. You just don't want to believe.

Edit: "According to Peterson and Vose (1997), in 1901 the representation of maximum/minimum instrumental temperature stations in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) up through the equatorial regions (South Asia, North Africa, Central America) was negligible.  Only coastal Australia had substantial instrumental representation in the early 20th century.   The rest of the temperature data for the SH and equatorial regions needed to be made up to extend “global” instrumental temperature data back to 1850."

https://notrickszone.com/2017/05/04/there-has-been-no-man-made-global-warming-in-...

Johnnie wrote on Nov 17^th, 2019 at 9:50pm:



What exactly is getting worse petal?

Drought - not global. The IPCC says maybe the Mediterranean Basin.
Cyclones/Hurricanes? Again not according to the IPCC.

The BalmyUncle's stuff is just Greeny lying fraud.

Glaciers have melted since time began as it is the way Nature maintains the constant ocean levels to make up for evaporation.

Greenies'  "graphs"  are just lying fabrications designed to fool the gullibles.

Pho Huc wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2019 at 2:23am:



Now that would be a first.

Please show at least one paper with ice core with an annual resolution.

Pho Huc wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2019 at 2:23am:



That article dos not mention anything specific about resolution. But Ice core measure CO2 NOT temperature.You do understand the distinction don't you?

So what is this proxy data for temperature that has a resolution of less than 100 years?

Its really cute how Lee demands all assertions be justified with a peer review paper with the same conclusion. Hypocrisy?  naw- Its his game plan. Dissemble. Deny, refuse, make the other person prove their opinions, then retreat back to disassembly. I guess if that's your job that's what you gotta do. How sad would it be if he was just doing it for free?