Re: on the unspoken truth about wildfires
Wilson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.messianic |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote: > 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: >>>>> >>>>>> 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? You said this before and I don't know why. They are using proxies, but I think the reconstructions do have value.