Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains

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

By the way, I have again unwrapped the URL for you.
>
>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)
>
>We can conclude that only a fraction of input changes are not
>resolved by some type of modulating factors. Otherwise at the peak of
>an ice age the planet would be frozen rock of ice, and during the
>interglacial we would boil in our socks. IOW even with a starting
>input of -0.293°C modulating factors such as decreased surface
>evaporation, decreased cloud cover in the tropics, etc, can have a
>profound affect on realized temperature.
>
>
>>>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
>>



Eric Stevens

.

Quantcast