Atlantis

First of all thankyou @ozimoron for this post. It’s a good learning moment for two reasons. 1. When linking to an article, don’t presume the other guy is going to spend less time and care to read it than you (if you’ve even actually read beyond the first few lines). ”“Paleoclimate records provide the only record we have of these past climates, but these records are imperfect and they have gaps in space and time.” Shockingly, my very mild (almost commonsense) comment about the relative reliability of records going back millions of years, is supported by your very own link.

Generally, I can’t begin to understand why people casually throw around “the ONLY reason for X” is + [the most extreme possible explanation]. It’s hardly ever appropriate. Specific to this awful subject (abortion for an underaged rape victims), it seems a little insane - at least at face value.

Say what? I’ve got to assume the 6 other likes you got must have been for the other content. How on earth do you rationalize the time limit in France, or Germany, or many other developed countries? They’re secretly on their way to zero weeks for permitting abortion right. Gotta be the “ONLY reason” anyone anywhere would support a limit lower than 24 weeks. @johnnybangkok would you like to explain / modify / retract that statement?

@placeholder I wasn't even trying to suggest it does shed any light on any human impact. This should have been clear to him and others when I distinctly mentioned the unprecedented levels of CO2 from human activity. Merely trying to communicate to another poster the objective existence of such proxy data is apparently very challenging when severe stubbornness is involved.

I did no such thing. Stop lying, it's pointless. Just click on page 1 and read what everyone wrote. It's there for all to see. At this point, it's obvious you're taking this way too personally and are scrambling for a way to step down. It's okay. It's not personal. We're talking about 1 and a bit degrees over a century. It's okay to accept this may have happened before. Chill.

I mean I circled the relevant data using a red circle despite your attempts to talk about the general trend. So back to the topic: now that we've established that as recent as circa 12,000 years ago, there could have been sharp rises in data comparable to the 1-1.25 degree rise over the past century....it is now up to you to explain to everyone how certain you are that millions (tens of millions, hundreds of millions) of years did not bear witness to anything of comparable magnitude. What I posted shouldn't be controversial at all.

I mean I can continue posting links, even with carefully labelled / annotated graphics. But apparently you can't see them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I'm sorry, but I assumed you had eyes. My bad. "You were busy suggesting that the proxies didn't exist." - How. How was I doing this when I demonstrated I was fully aware of climate proxies in a post way before I interacted with you. Explain. Here's another self-evident refutation of this charge: I added the words 'reliable' and 'relevant'. I clearly think a thing must exist if I query the thing's reliability and relevance to context of our discussion. Get it? Next!

Before you make claims about cause and effect, it is important you actually realize that the word 'unprecedented' for which I have already given the poster the full benefit of doubt, may not be as unprecedented as you think when you look back in deep history. Once you acknowledge this (and maybe even understand (!) why I initially said "reliable" and "relevant"), it might then be worthwhile to talk about the evidence of human contribution.

Now you're being deliberately sneaky. I myself mentioned the 'over 10,000 year' bit was not the focus. Here, i'll spoon-feed it to you: The red circled data represents decades / couple of centuries. And the data itself are averages from proxy measurements. What's the recent sharp rise again? Just over 1 degree Celsius (probably) over a century and a bit? Try and actually zoom in, and then open your mind. Finally, remind yourself what the initial point of disagreement was - attempting to compare modern (instrumental) data to proxies and estimates from millions of years ago and the obvious inherent uncertainty.

In the northern hemisphere yes. Of greater relevance: what do you think happened at the end of the YD to get us back to non ice-age temperatures? Sharply rising temperatures. And you're being deliberately evasive if you want to pretend you missed charts like this: Those very steep rises and (falls) were not over 'thousands of years'. Must the article explicitly mention warming over decades (when this is the not its main focus) in order for you to use the accompanying data?

No I didn't see your post when I hit sent. I can see why it caused confusion as you mentioned 'climatology' and I actually used part of your quote when responding to another poster. I've updated the post now.

Wikipedia is less dense of a read, but this image below won't let you zoom in much

'BP' means Before Present. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/younger-dryas

What do you mean? Please be more specific with your link request. You want annual data from millions of years ago (um.....) or thousands of years ago? You want to see a graph of global average temperatures just prior to the Holocene? On what level of granular detail - i.e. what do you want on the x-axis?

You may or may not know more than other posters. You should recognize a lot of the push back comes from the media's language of unwarranted certainty whenever there is a natural disaster. Your earlier post is reasonable: I would only add language that reflects increased likelihood rather than "this is climate-change, period".

@ozimoron You're reading far too much into it. I am not attempting to disparage an entire scientific field. Perhaps I shouldn't presume everyone else on this thread has focused on earlier posts in the same way that I have. Just a recap from above "The current spike in temperature is unprecedented for millions of years." - If you know your stuff and if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to this wording, then yes, it is correct. The apparent yearly increase in average temperatures is unprecedented, if you zoom right in. The change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human industrial and agricultural activity certainly is. However, as recent ago as 11,000-12,000 years ago, the change in temperature during the Younger Dryas was many many magnitudes larger than the relative blip we are seeing now. Not surprisingly, it was the end of the ice age and beginning of the Holocene. But this was over decades and centuries rather than years and decades, so on average, the rate of temperature increase might / may / was probably less. We can't get such granular data for that period compared to the modern readings from multiple locations around the world. So during the couple of centuries when global temperatures rose 15-20 degrees Celsius, was there definitively no period of 10, 20 years that saw a sharper rise in temperatures that we are recording now? I'm sure the poster above with a relevant climatology background will post links to refute this in part or whole if I am wrong. Now, that was 11-12 thousand years ago. Apply it to rock-based data from millions of years ago, and try to zoom in and tell me with any degree of certainty that there has not been a few decades of rapid temperature change. Is that better.

Oh I see, you have a problem with my paraphrasing. Fair enough: for clarity, I ought to have written something to the effect of "....whether we have data going back millions of years that is sufficiently reliable and relevant in the contexts of the posts above". Can't edit it now. To which you would presumably ask: "Huh such and such data is indeed reliable and contextually relevant etc etc", right?

Say what? I'm not misquoting him because I'm not quoting him. Does that make sense to you? It's called a reply. With my own content. Where I did quote, it was copy and paste, right-click > Quote selection. Well done for the statement about temperature information being available through geologic evidence. If you had seen placeholder's link, you'd realize your post is redundant. Feel free to ask / discuss about the 'relevant' and 'reliable' wording though rather than confusingly asking about 'misquoting' other posts.

Really not sure what exactly is "nasty" or "caustic" about any of the comments on this page. Links provided are certainly a good read though.

One benefit of oppressive humidity (eg Thailand’s): a lower risk of the landscape catching on fire when the temperature hits 40 degrees? https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-62184978 ‘Major Incident Declared in London…’

Are your feathers on fire yet? If only you had aircon in the UK…vehicles not included.

It is indeed a good refresher in how climate proxies work. Tree rings are another good tool for more recent history. However, unlike you, I wouldn't presume that I knew much more than the other poster when he accurately queried whether we have reliable and relevant data going back millions of years.

800,000 is also known as 0.8 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,000,000 0.8 is less than 1. It is one fourth-fifths of a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal Millions implies at least two million, typically more. 2 > 1 > 0.8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural

JimmyJ, tell them to download the Duolingo App for free to supplement his / her learning. Your friend might even try to use it exclusively as it can be quite fun / addictive to 'play'. It's probably as complete a resource as you can get to practicing all four communicative skills on a phone.