Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:15:11 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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.

Track it back if you like. The poit remains that the Little Ice Age
and the Medieaval Warm Period amounted to more than a degree either
way.
>
>> 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.

Oh good. Democracy in science. :-(

>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.

Listen you arrogant dingbat. I wasn't taking you to task over the
graphs. I was taking you to task over your entrenched unwillingness to
do even the most elementary thing to avoid wrapped and broken URLs.
You can't claim you dont know any better as nobody would believe you.
The point is you just don't care.

> 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.

Then why do you keep trying to bury me in bull***?
>
>>>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.

So, not withstanding what you have previously written you are not
paying any attention to anthropomorphic greenhouse gases.

>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

When all else fails, change the subject.

>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.



Eric Stevens

.

Quantcast