Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are We Headed Into Another Little Ice Age?
#41
(08-31-2011, 01:49 AM)Buzz Wrote: WOW!!! Never thought I would see JW or Sunny debunking John L's stupidity. Too bad Sunny's C3 link is just as stupid. You can't determine what global temperatures were based on just one ice core. And the way they made that graph is highly misleading. This is just a completely bogus comparison. I know Sunny won't like to hear this but... the people at C3 are the biggest cherry pickers and liars on the web as far as climate change goes.

Of course it was based on the Greenland Ice data.But it generally agrees with other proxies,for the existence of all those labelled warm and cold periods in the interglacial.

In the chart link I posted.It specifically stated the chart was based on the ice core data.He never said it applied to the rest of the world,as you are implying.

I post the chart for the benefit of everyone:

[Image: 6a010536b58035970c0133eff99296970b-pi]

Now read the yellow box at the bottom.



Reply
#42
Everyone can argue this all they wish. Buzz can deny it all. Tommy can doubt where we are headed, and the world can just go with the flow. But the flow is that we are headed back into the next round of the Pleistocene. We are Way, Way, overdue, as shown by the Lake Vostok data below.

[Image: vostok.jpg]

I still contend that we have been slowly sliding back into this next round, since the middle ages, and the fact that we are witnessing all these 'grand solar minimums' is a manifestation, not a correlation, here.

And when the climate is 'on the margin', it is ripe for some Impactor to come in and cause the world climate to crash, as it has done for over two and a half million years now.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#43
We have been at a "peak" for what appears to be longer than in the past, that's for sure.

Maybe, in an ironic twist, our CO2 emissions actually could lessen the impact of the coming cooling?

The inconvenient truth will be that we all won't be around to see it.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#44
(08-31-2011, 11:06 AM)JohnWho Wrote: We have been at a "peak" for what appears to be longer than in the past, that's for sure.

Maybe, in an ironic twist, our CO2 emissions actually could lessen the impact of the coming cooling?

The inconvenient truth will be that we all won't be around to see it.
....................................I Pray. S5

Murphy's Law?, What's that, right?



One other thing: if you check out this little fellow, you will be seeing the future, and what it can do to us, and out future climate, and the coming ice age:

Asteroid - 2005 YU55

Flyby date - Nov 8, 2011

Closest Distance - 0.8 LD (That's right, inside our lunar orbit)

Size of Asteroid - 175 m (One nice Mother, to create the Mother of all Trouble)

This is the sort of thing which will tip us into the next ice age: Foo Shoo
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#45
A little cooler weather would be nice. We will have our hottest August on record this year.
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#46
(08-31-2011, 11:33 AM)Biker Dude Wrote: A little cooler weather would be nice. We will have our hottest August on record this year.

Yeah, and perhaps the damned thing will land in your back yard, you moro............. Ok, I'm sorry, stop acting like one though, and I'll keep quiet about it.

Hey, it's only the size of two football fields. And you are thinking about 'a little cooler' would be the result?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#47
You are making no sense what so ever. But I am used to that.

Beside which I am not the one that posts pictures of snow drifts and then imply it means we are cooling down. So I didn't imply that this means we are warming up. I think maybe your high horse is SO high you are loosing oxygen all the way up there?
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#48

Parts of Britain suffer coldest summer for nearly two decades

Would like to see how the warm-mongers squirm their way out of this.
"Some of the best weapons do not shoot.”
U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual FM 3-24 December, 2006
BE PREPARED - http://www.gunsandall.com/

http://www.westerncivforum.com/index.php
Reply
#49
(08-31-2011, 09:17 AM)John L Wrote: Everyone can argue this all they wish. Buzz can deny it all. Tommy can doubt where we are headed, and the world can just go with the flow. But the flow is that we are headed back into the next round of the Pleistocene. We are Way, Way, overdue, as shown by the Lake Vostok data below.

[Image: vostok.jpg]

I still contend that we have been slowly sliding back into this next round, since the middle ages, and the fact that we are witnessing all these 'grand solar minimums' is a manifestation, not a correlation, here.

And when the climate is 'on the margin', it is ripe for some Impactor to come in and cause the world climate to crash, as it has done for over two and a half million years now.

John,

I posted this at my forum over 1 1/2 years ago.Stating that we have been in a long term cooling trend for the last few THOUSAND years.

LINK

I have been aware of this for many years.

The Vostock Charts you posted.Has a weakness in it you need to take in account of.

The further back in the past.The less accurate the data is.Take note of the wiggly peaks in the last 125,000 years.They are based on more recent data that is more accurate.That is why it looks different from the older ice core data.

The see saw appearance is more data points.Further back in time beyond the 125,000 years time are less data points and therefore less accuracy on the temperature changes.

The peak of around 125,000 years,would probably have a flatter peak similar to the current peak.IF it had more data points to work with.

My position is not to declare that we are now going into the ice age beginning with this current weak cooling trend.It is not yet determined that the periodic warming/cooling trend every 20-30 years paradigm has changed.

The warming trend since the 1850's is unchanged.Until it changes.It will continue to get a little warmer over all in the decades ahead.

YOU will have to show us.That this observed 150+ years old warming trend is coming to an end.And that the climate has visibly changed to a dominant cooling trend for the future.

I have not seen it,have you?
Reply
#50
Buzz,

I am sure you will say this is a cherry picked chart too.Despite that it is based on Ice core data.

LINK

The large temperature changes in the Greenland region is obvious over the 10,000 years.But.....,

CO2 changes are negligible in all that time.

For many years.You AGW freaks argued that until 1880 or so.There was little change to the atmospheric CO2 levels for thousands of years.

You guys have put yourself into a corner with your own propaganda.

S13
Reply
#51
(08-31-2011, 08:25 PM)sunsettommy Wrote: The Vostock Charts you posted.Has a weakness in it you need to take in account of.

The further back in the past.The less accurate the data is.Take note of the wiggly peaks in the last 125,000 years.They are based on more recent data that is more accurate.That is why it looks different from the older ice core data.

The see saw appearance is more data points.Further back in time beyond the 125,000 years time are less data points and therefore less accuracy on the temperature changes.

The peak of around 125,000 years,would probably have a flatter peak similar to the current peak.IF it had more data points to work with.

Yes, I believe you can look at the temperature chart on the bottom, and see that the further back you look, the more general the data. Trust me, I may have been born at night, but not last night.

Hey, you have your own pet theories, and I have mine. As a physical anthropologist, my specialty was early man, and human development during that very time the charts show. I know more than the average person about how the Pleistocene was started, how it works, and the cycles they go through.

Now, I cannot state, with backup data, that we are reentering the next round. Nor can I tell you, with backup data, that all those sudden drops in the charts are most likely the result of Impactors, but I would bet my left testicle on it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#52
(08-31-2011, 08:51 PM)John L Wrote:
(08-31-2011, 08:25 PM)sunsettommy Wrote: The Vostock Charts you posted.Has a weakness in it you need to take in account of.

The further back in the past.The less accurate the data is.Take note of the wiggly peaks in the last 125,000 years.They are based on more recent data that is more accurate.That is why it looks different from the older ice core data.

The see saw appearance is more data points.Further back in time beyond the 125,000 years time are less data points and therefore less accuracy on the temperature changes.

The peak of around 125,000 years,would probably have a flatter peak similar to the current peak.IF it had more data points to work with.

Yes, I believe you can look at the temperature chart on the bottom, and see that the further back you look, the more general the data. Trust me, I may have been born at night, but not last night.

Hey, you have your own pet theories, and I have mine. As a physical anthropologist, my specialty was early man, and human development during that very time the charts show. I know more than the average person about how the Pleistocene was started, how it works, and the cycles they go through.

Now, I cannot state, with backup data, that we are reentering the next round. Nor can I tell you, with backup data, that all those sudden drops in the charts are most likely the result of Impactors, but I would bet my left testicle on it.

More a hunch then?

It IS cooling over the past few thousand years.We are reentering the next round.But until this warming trend truly ends.It will have to wait.

S1

Reply
#53
Call it what you wish to call it. The best criminal detectives solve their biggest cases based on hunches. Eugene Shoemaker based his theories on the lunar surface based on a hunch. The same thing with Alfred Wegener and plate tectonics. I'll consider myself in good company.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#54
(08-31-2011, 08:51 AM)sunsettommy Wrote:
(08-31-2011, 01:49 AM)Buzz Wrote: WOW!!! Never thought I would see JW or Sunny debunking John L's stupidity. Too bad Sunny's C3 link is just as stupid. You can't determine what global temperatures were based on just one ice core. And the way they made that graph is highly misleading. This is just a completely bogus comparison. I know Sunny won't like to hear this but... the people at C3 are the biggest cherry pickers and liars on the web as far as climate change goes.

Of course it was based on the Greenland Ice data.But it generally agrees with other proxies,for the existence of all those labelled warm and cold periods in the interglacial.

In the chart link I posted.It specifically stated the chart was based on the ice core data.He never said it applied to the rest of the world,as you are implying.

I post the chart for the benefit of everyone:

[Image: 6a010536b58035970c0133eff99296970b-pi]

Now read the yellow box at the bottom.

I did read the yellow box... did you? Here's the part you seem to be missing:

Quote:The pink arrow/dot represents the instrumental temperature increase since the trough of the LIA.

This is the average temperature of the whole planet. And they are comparing that to just one ice core. Now take a look at this graph from Wikipedia:

[Image: Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H...ations.png

Now this graph shows plots for 8 different proxy temperatures and you can see that they don't all agree. So... to make a fair comparison between these proxy temperature swings and the recent global warming one would need to use the average of all these proxies. That average is represented by the thick black line. And if you do that then C3's whole argument goes right down the shitter.

(08-31-2011, 08:51 PM)John L Wrote: Now, I cannot state, with backup data, that we are reentering the next round.

I have been saying this for well over a year now. Nice to see you actually admitting it.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#55
In the Wiki graph, an identification of the various curves is missing. A sad shortcoming.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#56
Did you click on the link? Its down under the section labeled "Data sources".

Quote:The following data sources were used in constructing the main plot:

1. (dark blue) Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: M. Zhao, N.A.S. Beveridge, N.J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton (1995). , Paleoceanography, 10(3): 661-675. doi:10.1029/94PA03354
2. (blue) Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999). , Nature, 399: 429-436. doi:10.1038/20859
3. (light blue) GISP2 ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Greenland: Alley, R.B. (2000). , Quaternary Science Reviews, 19: 213-226. doi:10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00062-1
4. (green) Kilimanjaro ice core, δ18O, Eastern Central Africa: Thompson, L.G., E. Mosley-Thompson, M.E. Davis, K.A. Henderson, H.H. Brecher, V.S. Zagorodnov, T.A. Mashiotta, P.-N. Lin, V.N. Mikhalenko, D.R. Hardy, and J. Beer (2002). , Science, 298(5593): 589-593. doi:10.1126/science.1073198
5. (yellow) Sediment core PL07-39PC, interpreted sea surface temperature, North Atlantic: Lea, D.W., D.K. Pak, L.C. Peterson, and K.A. Hughen (2003). , Science, 301(5638): 1361-1364. doi:10.1126/science.1088470
6. (orange) Pollen distributions, interpreted temperature, Europe: B.A.S. Davis, S. Brewer, A.C. Stevenson, J. Guiot (2003). , Quaternary Science Reviews, 22: 1701-1716. doi:10.1016/S0277-3791(03)00173-2
7. (red) EPICA ice core, δDeuterium, Central Antarctica: EPICA community members (2004). , Nature, 429(6992): 623-628. doi:10.1038/nature02599
8. (dark red) Composite sediment cores, interpreted sea surface temperature, Western Tropical Pacific: L.D. Stott, K.G. Cannariato, R. Thunell, G.H. Haug, A. Koutavas, and S. Lund (2004). , Nature, 431: 56-59. doi:10.1038/nature02903

Additional data used in inset plot and for matching temperature scale to modern values. Colors match those used in Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#57
(09-07-2011, 05:38 PM)jt Wrote: In the Wiki graph, an identification of the various curves is missing. A sad shortcoming.

Even if you look at all the different graphs and average them, you get the black line, which clearly shows the globe cooling down since it's height in the Holocene past. We are slowly heading back into another glacial round. All it will take is for a large Impactor to make an instant drop into the next round of the Pleistocene. We are overdue, and you can poo-poo it all day long if you wish.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#58
(09-07-2011, 07:25 PM)John L Wrote: Even if you look at all the different graphs and average them, you get the black line, which clearly shows the globe cooling down since it's height in the Holocene past.

Uh, someone from the Warmist camp will soon hide that decline.

S1
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#59
(09-07-2011, 07:25 PM)John L Wrote: Even if you look at all the different graphs and average them, you get the black line, which clearly shows the globe cooling down since it's height in the Holocene past. We are slowly heading back into another glacial round.

Damn... why do you insist on repeating this lie? Look at the graph again. See the 2004 marked with an arrow on the right? That is about where we are now and it is higher than in any period in this interglacial. Fact of the matter is that the long term cooling trend ended when we humans started pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the air. Deny it all you want but it will not change this fact!!

(09-07-2011, 07:25 PM)John L Wrote: All it will take is for a large Impactor to make an instant drop into the next round of the Pleistocene. We are overdue, and you can poo-poo it all day long if you wish.

Yes... I'll poo-poo it all day long because this is no more than speculation on your part.

(09-07-2011, 08:46 PM)JohnWho Wrote: Uh, someone from the Warmist camp will soon hide that decline.

Look... lets get something straight here. The only decline that warmists hid... DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN!!

Whats funny is that John has posted almost the same graph here in this thread. Here it is:

[Image: holocene.jpg]

Looks very similar to the average of all the proxies in that graph from Wiki...

[Image: Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png]

So... John's graph changes the "0" in the timescale to "now" when it isn't really now.And it also neglects to actually mark modern temps at all. Looks to me like it is hiding the increase in temps that actually did happen.

S13

The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#60
(09-10-2011, 06:10 AM)Buzz Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 08:46 PM)JohnWho Wrote: Uh, someone from the Warmist camp will soon hide that decline.

Look... lets get something straight here. The only decline that warmists hid... DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN!!

Are you talking about the temperature decline that the tree ring proxies showed?

So, it is OK to hide or ignore data that shows something that didn't happen? Especially when it doesn't show what you want shown?

Ah, yes, that is the way your Warmists conduct yourselves:

Data doesn't show global warming?

Ignore it.

Use the models instead.

Got it.

S3


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)