Climate Change - The Roman Warm Period, MWP & LIA were global events proven by proxy data

"The Little Ice Age in South Africa, from around AD 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley. The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period."

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Ice_Age_and_medieval_warming_in_South_Africa

Roman Warm Period

"This record comparison consistently shows the Roman as the warmest period of the last 2 kyr, about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

Roman Warm Period was global

"After the 1st century ce there is evidence of a progressive rise in sea level. Roman buildings and peat layers were covered by the marine transgression in the Netherlands, southern England, and parts of the Mediterranean. At the same time, drying and warming trends were associated with alluviation of streams and general desiccation in southern Europe and North Africa. Similar alluviation occurred in the American Southwest. This warming and desiccation trend is evident also in the subtropics of the Southern Hemisphere. "

https://www.britannica.com/science/Holocene-Epoch/Classical-Roman-Period

We've had weather satellites for only 50 years. 2K years ago, they would have shown these were global events, even more extreme than the proxy record shows.
 
Because I care more about the environment than YOU fucking nazi WHITE LIBS, I googled it a long time ago. It's that simple. Clearly, you are too lazy to do more than virtue signal and act like a fucking parrot.

Depending on the lab, it is +- .0003 to .0005. Of course, when comparing two measurements, you have to double that.

POS like Al Gore and Michael Mann want you to PAY them to tell you information about "saving the planet". :palm:
You haven't really told us the margin of error. Is that the margin of error of PPM of 12C, 13C or 14C? Or is that the margin of error of the entire sample?

How many samples do they take at each site to test? What happens if the sample results don't match? When do they compare only 2 samples in such a way that would require a doubling of the margin of error. Plotting the results from tens of thousands of samples over several years is not the same thing as comparing 2 samples. Statistics tells us that the more samples you have, assuming the errors are random plus or minus the less likely the errors will show up in the plot trend line. At this point, it seems you have decided that a margin of error that you can't even explain or tell us where that error occurs overrides all other science and math.
 
Last edited:
I don't do clickbait. Post it here if you think it's significant :dunno:
Nah.. you just resort to childish name calling when asked to defend your position.
Does that response feed your superiority complex with the sadistic joy you crave?
More childish comments.

Still waiting for you to tell us what your claimed margin of error refers to. Until you do that we cant' examine it to see if your claim about insignificance is correct.
 
Back
Top