Re: Cod Fish, Walrus, and Chieftains

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:49:09 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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.
>

It's the only way to go when dealing with an arm-waving bigot. :-)



Eric Stevens

.

Quantcast