Re: on the unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
> On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:59:31 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring- 
>>>>>>>>>> images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature- 
>>>>>>>>>> berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years 
>>>>>>>>>> past.  Since
>>>>>>>>>> 1960 the trend is much more steeply up.  Breaking wilson's 
>>>>>>>>>> alleged
>>>>>>>>>> cycling.  The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good 
>>>>>>>>>> as you
>>>>>>>>>> can reasonably get in science.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is 
>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>> statistically significant, wilson.  Really.  Really.  I bet 
>>>>>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>>>>>> find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your 
>>>>>>>>>> scrounging around
>>>>>>>>>> in past eons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific 
>>>>>>>>> articles. A
>>>>>>>>> chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no 
>>>>>>>>> context.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and 
>>>>>>>> combined with
>>>>>>>> ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center.  Of course, I 
>>>>>>>> would not
>>>>>>>> include text from USA Today.  They are even worse than cnn, nbc, 
>>>>>>>> abc,
>>>>>>>> cbs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, 
>>>>>>>> displaying
>>>>>>>> true data as it does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s 
>>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>>> any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was 
>>>>>>>>> before then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As any clean pig can tell you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence 
>>>>>>>>> interval"
>>>>>>>>> statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the 
>>>>>>>>> data that
>>>>>>>>> they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not
>>>>>>>>> confidence in that data's accuracy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you accuse.  Not so, I would say.  Your Marine DI still 
>>>>>>>> expects you
>>>>>>>> to poopoo louder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 95% confidence is confident when scientists say it.  Because 
>>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>> the ones who know what they are talking about.  If confidence is 
>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>> than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when 
>>>>>>>> appropriate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not what the confidence interval means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 95% confidence means 95 times out of 100, the data shown will be
>>>>>> correct.  If confidence level is 85%, then you could say +/- 5%
>>>>>> confidence interval.  At 95%, an interval is not especially
>>>>>> meaningful.  95% is very confident, but 5% room for error is still
>>>>>> allowed.  Because scientists bend over backwards and sideways at the
>>>>>> same time to be honest about their pronouncements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough, the Berkeley Earth group has a 95% confidence that the 
>>>>> real
>>>>> world temps fall within the error lines on that chart. That said the
>>>>> lack of measurements across most of the world before the 1970s is a 
>>>>> real
>>>>> thing.
>>>>
>>>> You are deceived.
>>>>
>>>>> The other issue is that the chart begins at the end of the Little Ice
>>>>> Age, which was the coldest period on Earth since the end of the last
>>>>> glaciation. That's something to keep in mind.
>>>>
>>>> Fascinating.  So 1850 was the end of the coldest period on earth since
>>>> the last glaciation?  Who told you such a thing?
>>>
>>> It's pretty well established that the mid-Holocene warm period about 6k
>>> years ago was followed by a cooling trend (~0.7 C) through the later
>>> Holocene that reached the coolest levels in the Little Ice Age.
>>>
>>> "The IPCC has described the LIA as a multi-centennial cooler period
>>> lasting until about 1850.
>>>
>>> Glacier evidence in the European Alps show major advances peaked in the
>>> mid-19th century (around 1850–1860 in many places), after which glaciers
>>> began a sustained retreat.
>>>
>>> Different regions experienced their coldest intervals at different times
>>> (the 17th century in parts of Europe and North America, mid-19th century
>>> in other areas)."
>>
>> "Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in
>> a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the
>> twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia.
>> However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions
>> differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely
>> independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous
>> increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally
>> synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval,
>> and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm
>> Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in
>> hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. ...
>> [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered
>> as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of
>> less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.[3]"
>>
>> Modest cooling.  "Little Ice Age" might be a little overstated.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct temps 
>>>>> over
>>>>> the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be
>>>>> highly regarded:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking
>>>> about.  Look to the far right of the graph.  Do you see something
>>>> alarming?  For a better look, go to the close up view below the big
>>>> graph.  What do you see to the far right?
>>>
>>> Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated
>>> possible temps from ~6k years ago.
>>
>> I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb.  You
>> see the same effect here
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>>
>> where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.  Are you still in
>> denial?  Of course you are.
> 
> Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some will 
> claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
> 

yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction so what 
do u even know, eh?

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃