Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains

In sci.archaeology message
news:132ko1pjq76ho5qglkfg515m5gg1rgght0@xxxxxxx by Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :

> 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

Meaningless without a legend, and irrelevant as other more generally
recognized plots are present.

> 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.

This particular data set is of the most cited. Within any cooling
period some areas will be more or less affected. Within a geological
climate change period 1°C per 100 years would be an extremely rapid
change that would be expected midpoint within a large change, as one
rolls off the top very little rate change is expected, and is
observed, the baseline pattern is a slow gradual inflection, easily
spotted.
At a Change of 7°C Ice covered parts of europe and NA at 2 miles in
depth, greenland and the routes the vikings took would not have
allowed them anywhere close to greenland. At a 7°C hange over 400
years essentially most of North America is unihabitable, the reason
it is uninhabitable is because it takes the accumulation of massively
spread glaciers reflecting alot of the suns radiation at high
altitudes back into space. In that context 1/3rd of a degree is alot.

> 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.

Most people here don't have a problem with the graphs, although they
do accept they will be corrected with better data in the present and
future studies. They also accept the general trend is not a vast
conspiratorial misrepresenation of the facts.
Let me put it to you like this, you have been presented with this
data many times, in different ways, by different people. I you had
the objectivity to understand it, you would have by now, and since
you don't there is nothing I can say to you that would ever change
your mind.

>>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

Excuse me, I am not focusing on manmade emmissions, in the long run
they will matter little, the fate of the earth lies with climatic
cycles of geological ages. This excess carbon may forstall the ice
age for a brief period, but the equilibrium favors that natural
precedence. The point I was making to Uwe is that coupling global
warming with a climate cool down (which would have cause greenland
and large portions of canada to be uninhabitable if no athropomorphic
additions had occurred) is going to have complicated effects that
lack the types of precedences. In this context new scenarios and
anomolous natural formations may occur. That's all.

> http://maravot.com/solar-outputmodel_pnas.gif

They are talking about changes of 0.6% range chart I showed you was
talking about changes of in the 12% range, did you look at the
scales. Such a childish mistake.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/11/11_194_bslide.html
Change is from 435 to 540 Watt/M² The geometric mean is 484 Watt/M²
The range is +/- 11.4% This range covers a temperature equilibrium of
7°C therefore its causal ration is ~3% per 1°C. The solar output
graph you refer to is 0.5% change. 0.5%/3% = 1/6th of a degree affect
since the end of the LGM. Ice ages are the result of temperature
changes in the range of 5 to 7°C. Solar output may be a factor in a
dominant swing, but it is nowhere close to being a predominant
factor. So do you think maybe you need to take a closer look at the
NOAA Graphs. The mini-ice age solar output drop that you mentioned
was a change of output of 0.1% which translates into about a 1/30th
of a degree difference. Wow! the spontaneous greenhouse _gases_
emitted by the cattle herds of Britian cause more of an increase than
that.
Are there any more sources of data you want to jump up, down and
scream about? You might want to apply a more complex theory to your
graph, for example, statistically what sites are at the historical
latitude and what percent of the earth do they cover, versus the data
set and what percent of the earth do they cover. Consider also that
during an ice age, everything that is 2 miles high and sets on a
glacier, almost by definition is frozen (below freezing) no matter
where it is. For instance, if that 5% of that world which your
average came from were say, mostly covered with glaciers, and you
temperature drop in that area were 3°C, consider how much colder the
average temperature 2 miles up on top of a glacier might be than
current average temerpature in the same location, and you might
consider that latitude were observations are made might influence the
interpretation. For example suppose I am sitting in say North Dakota,
were say in the summer time the temperature reaches as high as 110°F
(about 40°C) now consider during the LGM I am in north dakota and
sitting on a 2 mile high glacier is a temperature of 40°C, 30°,20° or
even 15°C going to be averaged into my calculation. That average 7°C
cooler that occurs globally may translate into some places that are
average 30°C cooler than present, and other places that are only
slightly cooler. Therefore both datasets can be correct, some areas
may have been cooler, and recorded historically cooler patterns, but
when one talks about global average seawater temperatures or surface
temperatures, that is the average between places alot cooler and
places not cooler at all, places with the same approximate
temperature.
I am sure this will not be good enough for you, because you have
it stuck in your head that only one representation of the data can be
accurate, from a single perspective with you appear to idolize.







.

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: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains
    ... >> acknowledge either the Medieaval Warm Period or the Little Ice ... again consistent with the mini ice age. ... The graph you cited shows a temperature range of only ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • 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)
  • 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