"That’s when the Q&A suddenly became your lifeline."

I mentioned the Q&A in the post you referred to. It was always about the supplementary notes and the Q&A where they were presented. Marcott's original paper doesn't talk about the rapidity of warming. That was all in the Q&A.

The original paper talked about the resolution of the data being on average 160years and the Q&A draws the conclusion, which appears to be beyond your level of understanding, that given the 160 year period its impossible to conclude the recent warming is unprecedented.

Everything you've written since is about you trying to hide your misunderstanding. But putting words in Marcott's mouth is pretty silly.

Re Neukom , you said it covered 11000 years. I merely corrected yet another error.

"Does this remind you of another place, another time and another despot!"

Well Obama did it also but I wouldn't hold that against him. Every president has.

BTW Albo deported 90 illegals last year. Is he a despot?

BTW I noticed the latest aboriginal defect from the Greens (Dorinda Cox ) is saying they are racists. I presume you are disowning your support for them?

mhaze,

It seems your penchant for revisionism and misconstruing remains unaffected even after the veil of your obfuscation is lifted.

//I mentioned the Q&A in the post you referred to.//

No, you didn’t.

You mentioned Marcott (2013) as if it alone backed your claim. You didn’t cite the Q&A until after I pointed out you were misreading the paper - and even then, only to backpedal and reframe. The idea that your reliance on the Q&A was there from the start is revisionist history.

//Marcott’s original paper doesn’t talk about the rapidity of warming. That was all in the Q&A.//

False.

The original Science article compares modern warming trajectories with Holocene trends and concludes the recent spike diverges markedly. It states: “Global temperatures are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene.” The context and trajectory are discussed - just not the exact rate over a single century, which the authors make clear is due to proxy resolution, not uncertainty about the broader trend.

//The original paper talked about the resolution of the data being on average 160 years…//

Closer to 120, actually, which you’d know if you read it.

Either way, this doesn’t mean the study’s conclusions about modern divergence are invalid - it just means short-term rates need to be corroborated by higher - resolution reconstructions. That’s exactly why I cited Neukom (2019), which you ignored for multiple replies before hurriedly dismissing on scope.

//Everything you’ve written since is about you trying to hide your misunderstanding.//

No, everything I’ve written has consistently clarified exactly what Marcott said, why I cited it, and how you’ve tried to twist it into saying something it never did. You didn’t correct a misunderstanding. You created one.

//Re Neukom, you said it covered 11,000 years. I merely corrected yet another error.//

Another strawman. I’ve never claimed Neukom covered the full Holocene.

So again: you misunderstood Marcott, then leaned on an out-of-context Q&A once it was clear the paper contradicted you. You ignored Neukom entirely until forced to acknowledge it, then dismissed it based on a scope it never claimed to have.

Try again.

"//The original paper talked about the resolution of the data being on average 160 years…//

Closer to 120, actually, which you’d know if you read it."

From the Marcott paper....

"The average sampling resolution of the datasets is 160 years,"

FFS

Trumpster,

Nothing to say on the Epstein files about Trump being made public! Why is The Donald insisting they be kept closed, something to hide maybe?

I don't believe America is a true democracy. Trump is acting without a request being made by the Governor of California. Not since Nixon has a President acted this way without a request being made.

"Albo deported 90 illegals last year." After due process has taken place. Unlike Trump who simply sends in his "Gestapo" goons to grab people off the streets. Then deport them to a hell hole in South America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpbTw-Q3u8

Dorinda Cox is free to say what she likes. "I (Trumpster) presume you are disowning your support for them?" Just as you are supporting Dirty Donald after Elon Muck let the cat out of the bag with the Epstein files.

mhaze,

Yes, the average sampling resolution of the raw datasets is ~160 years. But the reconstruction itself - the stacked global time series Marcott used to compare trends - has a temporal resolution of ~120 years, as noted in multiple summaries of the paper (including NOAA's official overview).

You’re quoting the input. I was referring to the output. FFS indeed.

But thanks for the outburst - it saves me having to demonstrate, yet again, that you don't understand the difference between proxy sampling intervals and the resolution of the final reconstruction. Which, to be honest, explains a lot about the rest of your commentary.

Still waiting on your retraction of the “Neukom covers 11,000 years” claim you invented and falsely attributed to me too, by the way.