Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains

In sci.archaeology message
news:f6fio1dustsjivh9eudf0rb466c049887s@xxxxxxx by Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :

> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:47:39 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>In sci.archaeology message
>>news:mdrho1tpq8i82mmtlpvnccsd41v8ii61ba@xxxxxxx by Eric Stevens
>><eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:01:01 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>>> <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- snip ---
>>>
>>>> Whether you accept it or not, I should hardly care, but at
>>>> least
>>>>one prediction of global warming has been verified by the
>>>>published literature, the frequency and intensity of
>>>>catastrophic weather events is on the rise, and we can
>>>>primarily map these events increasing significantly over the
>>>>last 30 years. You denial of anthropomorphic causes is however
>>>>duely noted.
>>>
>>> You should read what I wrote for context. What else do you
>>> think I might have meant when I wrote:
>>>
>>> "I have accepted Global Warming as a fact since as a 6th and
>>> 7th
>>> grade schoolboy I encountered the early data when in the
>>> mid 1940s it was published in 'Science Digest'"
>>
>>Eric, don't play me the fool, I have your history on this
>>discussion. You frequently deny what you previously have said,
>>then turn around and say it again. What I should have said is
>>that your denial of anthropomorphic (as in greenhouse gases) was
>>duely noted. I am not go into your little game, again.
>
> Thank you for following my advice. I have never expressed doubt
> about the reality of global warming.I have expressed doubt about
> some the data and much of the modelling which attributes it
> principally to the activities of man.
>>
>>http://www.whyenergymatters.org/images/layout/graph_global.gif
>
> I have already told you that in this field you can prove almost
> anything you like by the careful selection of data. I'm not too
> impressed by the URL you have chosen to refrence. For example,
> why does the original page for that diagram only consider the
> last 1000 yearswhen it takes more than 2000 to encompass
> recognised temperature cycles? Why does the diagram barely
> acknowledge either the Medieaval Warm Period or the Little Ice
> Age. Is the author a follower/supporter of Mann?
>>
>>
>>http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
>>Note that global rise in CO2 followed ice ages and did not
>>generally precede them.
>
> What else would you expect? When the temperatures rise, all the
> bugs come back to life.
>>
>>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph2.gif
>>Note the trend after 1200 was generally down until the
>>industrial age.
>
> What? No Medieaval Warm Period? No little ice age?

The medieval Warm period is evident in the graphs, excepting the 20th
century the medieval warm period is evident at the Y intercept. You
can see that in the 14th to 18th century not only is the average
lowering, but at an increasing rate, this reflects coming off stasis
into a new circumstance, within that period there are decadal cold
periods, again consistent with the mini ice age. There is a
difference between the warm of today and the warm of the medieval
periods.

>>http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/01-27/global-warming-1000-v2.g
>>if
>
> More of the same.
>>
>>http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthl
>>y/upper_air_temps.gif
>
> Dear Philip,
> If you cant avoid wrapping URLs, when are you going to learn to
> use TinyURL?

Since I have presented these and extended versions of these to you
many times, I should not have to present you a URL at all. Geological
climactic cycles are not 150 year events, but last 1000s of years.

> In any case, it's not more of the same. It's quite a different
> (recent) time period.

Right, The base line trend (downward) along with decadal events
(generally downward, like volcanoes, etc) has an additional trend of
anthropomophic greenhouses gases added which have raised the
temperatures in the tropical lower troposphere while temperatures in
the lower stratosphere continue to fall.

>>It is important to note that will the tropospheric temperature
>>is on the rise that stratospheric temperature is falling. CO2
>>trapping is not going to be much of a factor at high altitudes
>>or during the arctic or antartic winters.
>
> How about a graph of solar output?

Why should one focus on one thing, when it has already been shown
relatively clearly that the composite picture of how radiation hits
the earth correlates well to our understanding of ice ages. Why not a
graph of earths shift in axis, precessionals and all that stuff. Many
factors influence what the 'baseline' average temperature should be.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/11/11_194_bslide.html

We would hate to be acting with only one set of information in mind,
wouldn't we, that would exhibit concretized thinking, wouldn't it.

It appears to be clear from these graphs that earth had reached it
maximum warmth in the 100,000 year cycle some 2000 years ago or so
and the -1*graphs of glaciations show that the minimum extent of
glacial ice, excluding the last 50 years was reached and that
glaciers were starting to advance (as Uwe Mentioned).

For example the LGM is marked at about 16,000 to 20,000 years
depending on where exactly one marks at, 19,000 years appear to have
been the peak, the precessional cycle and we are currently at peak,
this would have placed the northern hemisphere in an ice age.
Obliquity however recently peaked out and so its effect is beginning
to accumulate. When in the past Obliquity has been on the decline and
precessional northern peak was reached and declining, this has
generally been followed by ~30% increase in relative glacial ice (to
the minimum/maximum extents). The precessional periods are weak and
the obliquity will tend to dominate, resulting in less episodic cold
periods over the next few 1000 years, however the trend in the
obliquity is clear that downward temperatures should represent the
base line.

One of the key factors not evident in the graph is norther ice
coverage and the changes in summer reflection. If the trend from the
15th century had continued then solar reflection in the northern
hemisphere would have increased, accelerating the temperature decline
and glaciation until the next convergence of precessional and
obliquity peaks overlapped. Anthropomorphic gases may have prevented
this lag effect from occurring, placing climate now in a immediate
step back from orbital and solar cycles. In fact if complete
deglaciation were to occur then ice ages themselves may cease
altogether until some global catastrophe manages to reload the polar
ices.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New insights into planetary temperature fluctuations
    ... the effect of temperature fluctuations in the sun's interior. ... Earth's ice ages: for the past million years, ... Most scientists believe that the ice ages are the result of subtle changes ... known as the Milankovitch cycles. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • New insights into planetary temperature fluctuations
    ... There's a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. ... the temperature of the sun's core is held constant by the opposing pressures of gravity and nuclear fusion. ... The favoured frequencies allow the sun's core temperature to oscillate around its average temperature of 13.6 million kelvin in cycles lasting either 100,000 or 41,000 years. ... Ehrlich and other critics claim that the temperature variations caused by Milankovitch cycles are simply not big enough to drive ice ages. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Global warming at it again...
    ... of the earth can cause a decrease in temperatures in other parts of the earth. ... the average temperature around the ... If the climatic change is as profound as some of the ... the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: When London is submerged and New York is awash...
    ... the average temperature around the equator has risen ... >>temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven ... >>have a direct impact on food supplies. ... >>Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: "Climate activists pay Jeremy Clarkson a visit"
    ... and it doesn't take much to kick you into ... Ice ages take tens if not hundreds of thousands of years to get going! ... My computer model though is predicting ... a brief warm period somewhere between June and August next year. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)