Further, to wit, AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. Lloyd PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015.
'The Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C.'
There are a range of 'names' for the UNFCCC/IPCC/UNEP scam. Take your pick.
I too looked at Century-to-Century changes in temperature over 100,000 years or so using the Vostok Ice Core DATA. I also found a near-perfect Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation (no removing trends) of 1.2 C, see:
Oh, sorry, the disclaimer was copied from the Youtube page. I thought substack was following the lead of putting blurbs like that. I watched the video embedded in the article. Very ironic since anyone with a modicum of brain capacity would realize that the video succinctly disproves the blurb or at the very least makes it extremely uncertain and unlikely.
I can remember in the 1990's watching a documentary that had Dr. Henrik Svensmark giving a presentation to a large audience of scientists showing his new found correlation between solar cycles and global temperatures.
After the presentation was over, or it may have even been before he was done, the crowd of scientists were having none of his proposal of the correlation and began berating him to the point that many resorted to yelling.
A telling moment indeed. The reaction to "climate science" dogma questioners is remarkably similar, it seems, to the onslaught that dogma questioners for other such things as mRNA vaccines receive.
Yup.
About 4 years ago I gave a Seminar at I.U. Bloomington regarding my analysis of the Vostock Ice Core DATA and questioning the AGW Narrative.
At the end of my talk, the Department Chairman said, "You rely too much on DATA".
A very nice presentation, thank you.
Further, to wit, AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. Lloyd PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015.
'The Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C.'
There are a range of 'names' for the UNFCCC/IPCC/UNEP scam. Take your pick.
I too looked at Century-to-Century changes in temperature over 100,000 years or so using the Vostok Ice Core DATA. I also found a near-perfect Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation (no removing trends) of 1.2 C, see:
https://timellison.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming-iv
The changes we have seen in the last century are insignificant.
I call it the "Follow-the-Science" Religion.
https://timellison.substack.com/p/the-dawn-of-a-new-religion
Tim, thanks for this interesting post. The data is here:
https://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/data/ddjtemp.txt
cheers, Tom Berger
Thank you !
What's up with the moronic UN blurb about at the end of the article? I thought Substack was neutral?
Read my whole article --
I used that blurb as a quintessential example of the Censorship and Propaganda we are inundated with.
Oh, sorry, the disclaimer was copied from the Youtube page. I thought substack was following the lead of putting blurbs like that. I watched the video embedded in the article. Very ironic since anyone with a modicum of brain capacity would realize that the video succinctly disproves the blurb or at the very least makes it extremely uncertain and unlikely.
Thanks for posting this. I am a bit sceptical tho:
1) I doubt can you measure surface temperatures from 8000 years ago
2) Surface temperature of 30 -32 C in Greenland I find hard to believe.
Thanks for you comment Mr. Small.
I think your comment might strike a chord with many others.
Consequently I will address your comment in a new Post.
It's minus 30-32.
Yup --
Here's a tip kids (learned this in Physics graduate school):
Whenever uncertain, use the minus sign, not the positive sign.
Why? Simple: It's easier to change a minus sign into a positive sign than a positive sign into a negative sign!
Thanks for that!
I can remember in the 1990's watching a documentary that had Dr. Henrik Svensmark giving a presentation to a large audience of scientists showing his new found correlation between solar cycles and global temperatures.
After the presentation was over, or it may have even been before he was done, the crowd of scientists were having none of his proposal of the correlation and began berating him to the point that many resorted to yelling.
A telling moment indeed. The reaction to "climate science" dogma questioners is remarkably similar, it seems, to the onslaught that dogma questioners for other such things as mRNA vaccines receive.