[late]

it's worth noting but what's the real significance? We don't know because we don't have a reliable accurate record going back far enough to establish a baseline to compare it to.

The North Pole is melting. The South Pole is melting. The permafrost is no longer perma. The American glaciers are melting, the European glaciers are melting. The Himalayan glaciers are melting. There's more, but pretty much everything is melting. We are having to devise new ways to measure it because we've never seen anything like it.

They are melting because they are absorbing energy, as is the ocean. At some point, their ability to absorb energy will slow down dramatically.

That will be a very interesting day.

[Sivad]

pretty much everything is melting. We are having to devise new ways to measure it because we've never seen anything like it.

except for during the medieval warm period, the roman warm period, and the holocene optimum. This was all accepted science until they started rejiggering the temperature record to fit their "theory".

[Sivad]

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... arm-period

So the settled science of warmer than the present mid-holocene was "revised" only recently and of course it's only a coincidence that the revision perfectly fits the alarmist paradigm.

[Pants-of-dog]

how far back do instrument records go on that continent and what's the instrument coverage of the continent? the hottest day in 100 years isn't all that interesting and if there's only sparse instrument coverage then how can you know that's unusually warm for the continent?

edit: also, how reliable is the instrument record anyway? Most instrument records aren't all that reliable, they're a hodgepodge of different instruments setup in different conditions(some are inside some are outside) read at different times of day(temperatures fluctuate 30 degrees or more diurnally) so it's doubtful that an entire continent, let alone a globe, can be accurately measured to within 1 degree.

This is a major problem for the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis because if you don't know what the average was 50 or 100 years back then you can't really have a scientific consensus that current warming is outside the natural range.

This is all an argument from ignorance.

[late]

except for during the medieval warm period, the roman warm period, and the holocene optimum. This was all accepted science until they started rejiggering the temperature record to fit their "theory".

Ahh, you got brainwashed.

[Sivad]

This is all an argument from ignorance.

you are so ridiculously bad at logic. In order for it to be an argument from ignorance I'd have to be arguing that CAGW is false because we don't know that it's true. But that's not the argument at all, what I'm saying is that you can't claim CAGW is true if you can't know either way because you don't have the necessary information.

Now I'm sure that the above was all totally lost on you but it's worth explaining so that people can see that you're not someone worth paying any attention to.

[late]

Now I'm sure that the above was all totally lost on you but it's worth explaining so that people can see that you're not someone worth paying any attention to.

Scientists inside the relevant community determine what a science says.

If I was being charitable, I'd say you were like a drunk baseball fan hollering the 'Ref is a bum".

But I'm not feeling charitable.

[Rancid]

We don't know because we don't have a reliable accurate record

This claim isn't certain either. What level of accuracy is required?

There is certainly inferences based on all sorts of data like ice core samples, sediment, etc etc. I doubt the data is perfectly accurate, but that doesn't mean it's invalid either.

it's worth noting but what's the real significance?

In the context of other data, it can have significance. Many are claiming it's evidence of a broader trend. When the average moves up, so do the max and min of fluctuations around that average. This means you will see your max records broken fairly regularly, which has happened a few times already in the arctic. I think that's one part of the general idea.

[Sivad]

Scientists inside the relevant community determine what a science says.

nothing I'm saying is anything scientists inside the relevant community haven't already said. There are dozens of highly respected senior climate scientists telling us this. I'm not just making it up, I got it from reading their material and listening to their lectures. These aren't just the rank and file, they're the top minds in the field of climate science. They're the people that literally wrote the book on climate science.

I should do a meet the deniers thread that lists the dozens of highly distinguished preeminent authorities that are skeptical of the alarmist paradigm.

[Donna]

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... arm-period

So the settled science of warmer than the present mid-holocene was "revised" only recently and of course it's only a coincidence that the revision perfectly fits the alarmist paradigm.

I don't know what is so significant about the Holocene Climatic Optimum for denialists. We know what caused it. We know it wasn't global. Is it their argument that we're having another one?

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

[late]

nothing I'm saying is anything scientists inside the relevant community haven't already said.

There are always those, usually old guys, that get left behind.

That's not relevant, it's the way science has worked for centuries. Einstein got left behind when he rejected statistics.

[Pants-of-dog]

:knife: you are so ridiculously bad at logic. In order for it to be an argument from ignorance I'd have to be arguing that CAGW is false because we don't know that it's true. But that's not the argument at all, what I'm saying is that you can't claim CAGW is true if you can't know either way because you don't have the necessary information.

Now I'm sure that the above was all totally lost on you but it's worth explaining so that people can see that you're not someone worth paying any attention to.

No. If you had argued that climatologists are making an argument even though they do not “have the necessary information”, you would have shown that they do not “have the necessary information”.

You did not.

Instead, you pointed out that YOU DO NOT KNOW if they have the information.

And you used your lack of knowledge to form an argument.

[Sivad]

“Even the vaunted scientific consensus around climate change…applies only to a narrow claim about the discernible human impact on global warming. The minute you get into questions about the rate and severity of future impacts, or the costs of and best pathways for addressing them, no semblance of consensus among experts remains.” - Daniel Sarewitz, professor of science and society at Arizona State University, where he is co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO)

[Sivad]

“111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations”. [IPCC Synthesis report 2014, p 43]

[Pants-of-dog]

@Sivad

Do you have an argument?

Or do you want me to piece together an argument for you based on the seemingly pointless quotes you copied and pasted?

[Rancid]

@Sivad

Do you have an argument?

Or do you want me to piece together an argument for you based on the seemingly pointless quotes you copied and pasted?

I think what he's trying to say is that because the models do not match the observations, the models are wrong. Because the models are wrong, warming is not happening? (which is not a valid claim based on that one point, perhaps there's more) Not sure what he's saying

[Pants-of-dog]

The Sarewitz quote is from an essay that looks at science in general. That is the only mention of climate change. There is no further explanation. Essay can be found here: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicat ... ng-science

[Sivad]

Antarctica records its hottest day in history

the observational period for Antarctica is short. Observational records only began in the 1940s and much of our understanding of the wider spatial climate variability and glacial dynamics is limited to the satellite era (post 1979).

Instrumental observations in the Antarctic Peninsula are sparse and relatively short, only supported by a network of meteorological stations since the late 1940s [4]. The lack of long-term observational records hinders the possibility to put modern observations into a climatic perspective.

https://www.intechopen.com/books/antarc ... -ice-cores

[Sivad]

I think what he's trying to say is that because the models do not match the observations, the models are wrong. Because the models are wrong, warming is not happening? (which is not a valid claim based on that one point, perhaps there's more) :?: Not sure what he's saying

I'm saying that the models are unreliable, the terrestrial based instrument record(in addition to a whole host of other problems) is short and has a sparse, non-uniform distribution that's heavily biased toward the norther hemisphere, the proxy reconstructions are a joke, there is no consensus, and the field of climate science is extremely politicized and dysfunctional.

I'm saying that there are a whole lot of very good reasons that all of this should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

[Rancid]

I'm saying that there are a whole lot of very good reasons that all of this should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Yes, based on some other posts, I figured this. You took a while to respond to my post.

Question, who is claiming there is a consensus, and why are they drowning out voices of disagreement?