Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains

In sci.archaeology message
news:jonmo1td0u5g5mfl5845nojr65p0t78u4e@xxxxxxx by Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:08:42 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>In sci.archaeology message
>>news:jsglo15m2qsqhc0v1suj3002n0b443fe6n@xxxxxxx by Eric Stevens
>><eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>You couldn't squink out a response? You little solar out put is
>>1/100 the solar input seen that results from orbital factors?
>>That the concordance of reduced solar output with the mini-ice
>>age was coincidental and not causative, at most modestly
>>contributive? Whats wrong Eric? Surely you can't call this
>>changing the subject without actually demonstrating that your
>>statement of reduced solar output was all but meaningless. Or is
>>that a declaration that you were incapable of doing the math
>>(which is true)
>
> With the present period of warming we are dealing with a global
> temperature change over a time period of a century or two at the
> most.

Yes, and . . . .what's going to happen when CO2 finds a new longer
term reservior, that's what the models are for.

> In that context, phenomena which require an absisca
> calibrated in units of hundreds of thousands of years have
> little relevance.

That was one of three, it is currently in a moderate position,
however two of them have intercyclic of 40 and 20 ky. And the
geometrics is such it is easy enough to calculate both. Since the
100ky cycle is in a neutral state and the 40 and 20 kya, considering
lag are in a state of cooling, it is logical to assume that currently
the earth is in a cooling trend, and that minor fluctuations in solar
output will either neutralize but in the case of glaciation
exaccerbate the trend.

> By the way, I have again unwrapped the URL for you.

You poor little thing, since I have repeated posted
from the same and similar sites, you shouldn't have to link out to it
at all.

>>Try KE = 3kT/2 for starters.
>>
>>If input KE = 500 and you alter this by 0.1% KE = 500.5, and
>>argue that Tº = 293°K
>>holding k¹ constant, what is T¹? 292.717°
>>What's the difference -0.293°K
>>
>>If we applied the same formula to orbital causes
>>540 translates into 316.44°K (43.44°C, 110.3°F)
>>435 translates into 254.91°K (-18.09°C, 0°F)

It is duely noted your lack of response.

.

Quantcast