Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:19:41 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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.

Balderdash. The graph you cited shows a temperature range of only
fractions of a degree when in fact the Little Ice Age ranged over
several degrees. See, for example.
http://faculty.washington.edu/scporter/LIAcurve.jpeg

I told you there is data out there to support any argument you like
and you are either exploiting that fact or unaware of it.


>
>>>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.

This is a news group. You are not writing just for my 'benefit'. I am
able to easily unwrap and repair your multiline URLs. Other people are
not so fortunate.
>
>> 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.

I'm objecting to the simple focussing on only one thing - man made
emissions. That's exactly why we should not ignore the effect of solar
output. See http://maravot.com/solar-outputmodel_pnas.gif


>
>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.
>
>
>
>



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains
    ... The poit remains that the Little Ice Age ... Why not a graph of earths shift in axis, ... >>>average temperature should be. ... >cooler that occurs globally may translate into some places that are ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • OT - Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh [was: Weather check]
    ... What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. ... Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, ... and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. ... ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: More Bad Global Cooling News: NBC
    ... In the 17th century Europe experienced another precipitous climatic change, ... This source says nothing about the temperature changes, however, a quick trip to Wikipedia shows that this period was not true global climate change, but a local disruption of the thermohaline circulation, aka global currents. ... "Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains
    ... > only fractions of a degree when in fact the Little Ice Age ... Why not a graph of earths shift in axis, ... >>average temperature should be. ... cooler that occurs globally may translate into some places that are ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • OT: A Rebuttal to Michaels Global Warming Story
    ... Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age ... are together known as the Milankovich cycles. ... includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 ... changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
Quantcast