Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: crosspost me again and you'll draw back a stump

Topic: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene (Read 1870 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #50
Here's another educated person who is very concerned about Global warming.

You might enjoy his global warming pages, especially the ones about sea level and our climate history.



His graphs of course show what I have said is the general consensus on past sea level.

Remember, just because it was warmer and sea level was higher in the past, that does no mean current climate change is not possibly a really big problem.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #51
His graphs of course show what I have said is the general consensus on past sea level.
No.
They do not.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #52
this is really bizarre. If it's a troll, then it's pretty good I guess. But it's still a lot of effort.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #53
this is really bizarre. If it's a troll, then it's pretty good I guess. But it's still a lot of effort.
No, there is zero effort.  A troll simply will post nothing, and imagine they said something important.

Like
Quote
No.
They do not.

See?  Trolling is easy, while science is difficult, especially in regards to something as hotly contested as climate change and sea level.  Idiots like VoxRat who don't actually know much about it are obvious.

The alarmist fuckhead imagines the ice core records, which clearly show temperature changes (based on isotope ratios of snow) did not in any way change sea levels for 6000 years.  That there was not much change in either temps or sea levels, the idiot story they are trying to sell isn't scientific at all.  That is what started this, when xkcd showed this idiot curve that in no way reflects reality.  The idiot fuckhead imagines the smooth black line is real, while all the scientific studies of the last hundred years, and the changes worldwide are meaningless.  Because they are fucked in the head somehow.

 An actual scientific observer, or anyone who looked this up in an encyclopedia would know sea level, especially recently, is a very much debated issue, with absolutely no consensus at all.  Even recent changes are debated, with tide gauges showing no increase in the slow rise that was well known a hundred years ago.



 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #54
It reminds me of a creationist who just dismisses all evidence they "don't agree with", and sticks to their idiot story, and nothing will matter to them at all.

Even when VoxRat realizes that yes, there are 3 meter raised beaches worldwide, he just changes his story to "yeah, bit not globally", because he thinks that means something.  That rebounding plates and ocean siphoning negates the temperature changes, the growing ice sheets, the changes in pollen and tree lines and the varve data, because he actually just doesn't know anything about it.

Which is why he seems like a troll.  An idiot often appears the same as an intelligent person trolling, but in reality it's just ignorance.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #55
I use VoxRat as an example, of course the true idiocy resides on blogs like skepticalscience and in the cluster fuck that was revealed by the climategate emails, where they colluded over just how much data to get rid of, and what tricks they could use, and how important it was to present the right story to the world.

Those idiots are the real threat to science. 

This idiot story the alarmists keep weaving and trying to sell is insulting to real science, and all the hard work people have done over centuries, to discover the truth about the past.

The problem is the 3 meter raised beaches can't be handwaved away. Well, they can and are, but those people are idiots.
  • Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 05:56:25 AM by F X
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #56
No, there is zero effort.  A troll simply will post nothing something blatantly false , and imagine they said something important.

Like
Quote
His graphs of course show what I have said is the general consensus on past sea level.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #57
An actual scientific observer, or anyone who looked this up in an encyclopedia would know sea level, especially recently, is a very much debated issue, with absolutely no consensus at all.


Quote from: F X;1717074
In regards to little ice ages, there are 9 other "little ice ages" since the last glacier period ended, that all show up in the geological record.

As well as a period where sea levels were around 3 meters higher than they are now. ...
These facts
were all in evidence before the global warmers tried to change history.
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=1717074

:rofl:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #58
The alarmist fuckhead imagines the ice core records, which clearly show temperature changes (based on isotope ratios of snow) did not in any way change sea levels for 6000 years.  That there was not much change in either temps or sea levels, the idiot story they are trying to sell isn't scientific at all. 
:rofl:

Here are the ice core data in question.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat
The interested reader can see for him/herself that - surprise! - F_X is full of shit.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #59
Hey!
Speaking of fuckheads...
The House Science Committee* just tweeted this:
Quote
@BreitbartNews: Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists

* Yes, friends. The U.S. House of Representatives committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R, Texas) Chair.

Well it's good to know the House Science Committee, Breitbart and F_X are all on the same page! 

The planet is fucked.

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #60
Take that shit to politics
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #61
They are every bit as scientific as you F_X.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #62
There you go again, just making shit up.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #63
There you go again, just making shit up.
Sort of like when you claimed the Vostok ice core data  support your claims about global temperatures in the Holocene Altithermal?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #64
21st Century Geography: A Reference Handbook

pages 55 and 56





Not that scientific facts and actual data will make any difference to the fuckhead.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #65
Even with it clearly stated, that the Altithermal was warmer, and then it cooled, that glaciers grew again, the fuckhead still believes the sea level didn't change.

A fuckhead just "knows" what happened, and the hell with scientific sources.

It's what makes them a fuckhead.

The idiots simply don't understand physics.  They "believe" that even with ocean and land temps falling, the sea didn't change.  The growth of an entire ice cap (dated to 5000 years ago) in Greenland doesn't matter to them, because they are not interested in science.  Only politics, and making shit up.

Stupid fuckheads.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #66
Who is this fuckhead, who thinks sea level didn't change?

:dunno:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #67
The climate fuckhead also "knows" that the MWP and the LIA were just local conditions, and that global temps didn't really change much.  I'm not kidding, skepticalscience actually publishes such crap.

And there are people who "believe" in the myth.

They actually don't know we have been warming out an extreme cold period for the entire planet.

It's priceless.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #68
Some people have even measured these changes in sea level!

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #69
< frothing at the mouth with unsupported accusations alleging that somewhere, someone is a fuckhead, saying some unspecified, uncited, unquoted fuckhead things about MWP and LIA >

It's priceless.
Priceless!
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #70
If your argument is basically the same as Cephus's that the nature of chaotic models is unpredictability, then I understand that objection and can only respond that attractor basins are also a feature of nonlinear systems that tend towards equilibrium.

Since poor FX is probably indisposed while weeping softly on his bed of inconsolable Trumpophobia and you reference me here I'll have a shot at answering.

Yes, this is a general truism that nonlinear dynamical systems feature attractor basins and it isn't the basins themselves which are unpredictable but the boundaries between them.  If you understand the system well enough then it may be possible to say what percentage of the phase space is occupied by which attractors but predicting when transitions from one island 'stable' state to another occur is forever impossible.  At least that used to be the case and I've yet to see the seminal paper demonstrating otherwise.

This is so even when you understand precisely the parameters involved - such as you do for mathematically generated Julia sets and so forth - but as far as I'm aware that is certainly not the case for planetary atmospheres at this time.  So then there have been several stable attractor basins for the Earth's climate over its long history such as snowball Earth, pluvials, hot and dry, glaciations and interglacials and all manner of quasi-stable oscillatory periods.  All of these driven by powerful natural forcing factors, often with complex feedbacks between them.

For the last 1.5 My until present it appears that there are two dominant attractor basins of glacial and interglacial and there are possibly more but the main two certainly dominate the Pleistocene climate.

This then forms the backbone of the null hypothesis which states that the climate we observe is driven by natural forcings and flip-flops between several different attractors depending on the detailed interactions between the forcing factors which are at this time imperfectly understood and to some degree which is also imperfectly understood.

The carbon dioxide hypothesis states that the Earth's climate is overwhelmingly driven by carbon dioxide alone and all other forcings are of secondary importance only.  The unnatural extension of this is to hypothesise that anthopogenic carbon dioxide, over and above that from natural sources, will cause in the first iteration of the hypothesis runaway global warming and more latterly unspecific but irreversible changes in the climate system.  Now many scientists consider this to be a quite extraordinary - to be diplomatic about it - claim and require a demonstration that this hypothesis explains the observed climate in a clear, unique and unambiguous way.  So far there is literally nothing, following getting on for half a Century of frenetic effort backed by funding which makes the Manhattan project look like a school science fair.  What we are instead presented with is endless output from models which employ massively speculative assumptions with no shred of empirical support.

Quote
If you have some specific issue with climate science, say, a detail it relies on that is clearly false, then you could present it and I think I would understand.

So then it really isn't for anyone to say what is false about the carbon dioxide claim.  It is for the claimants to demonstrate the truth of it with irrefutable evidence i.e. to conclusively and uniquely refute the null.  This is one of the basic fundamental tenets of science and I know you appreciate why it is.  As yet no one has even demonstrated that there is anything remotely unusual about today's climate by showing how it lies outwith the bounds of what is expected from natural variation - let alone show a causative link to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Lastly, what we are discussing here does not even tangentially belong within the remit of science at all.  The cynical branding change from 'global warming' - which actually made testable predictions - to 'climate change' - which does not - places the subject forever outside the realm of science.  The climate has always changed as everyone knows and will always change so a 'hypothesis' which predicts that some factor will cause the climate to change in some unspecified way is not a hypothesis at all.  It is completely unfalsifiable and as we've seen, no matter what happens the utterly stupid claim is always that carbon dioxide is the cause and specifically the human emitted part.  Literally no matter what happens it is claimed that it is perfectly consistent with the 'carbon dioxide climate change hypothesis'.  I may as well claim that water molecules are pushed around by tiny little pixies and exclaim in delight as every eddy and whorl in a waterfall provides irrefutable evidential support for my hypothesis.  It's to make poor Russell's teapot blanche at the sheer scale of the unfalsifiability.

What is deeply, deeply mysterious is why anyone with a pulse and not directly gaining money and influence out of it falls for this garbage at all and leads me to conclude that it is in fact a religion like all the rest and therefore permanently exempt from any kind of rationality.
  • Last Edit: December 03, 2016, 11:58:01 AM by Cephus0

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #71
The carbon dioxide hypothesis states that the Earth's climate is overwhelmingly driven by carbon dioxide alone and all other forcings are of secondary importance only. 
[citation needed]

You and F_X have elevated the Art of the Strawman to hitherto undreamed of heights.
  • Last Edit: December 03, 2016, 11:52:35 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #72
Quote
Not to use an overly technical term here, but there's a neat paper in this week's Science that explains clearly why carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main agent behind changes in the Earth's climate--now and in the geologic past.
http://science.time.com/2010/10/14/climate-why-co2-is-the-control-knob-for-global-climate-change/
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #73
The CO2 theory clearly states that it is changes in CO2 that turn small changes in sunlight (from the old Astronomical theory of climate change) into the large changes we know have happened.

The theory also states that increasing the amount of CO2 will lead to global warming, if everything else doesn't change.

That the alarmists don't seem to know the basics of global warming is no longer a surprise.  It's just sad.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Something about the timing and significance of four named periods within the Holocene
Reply #74




Hansen et al 1981

When he says "the CO2 theory", he is talking about the basic theory of global warming.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭