It is really strange that some have made an apocalyptic religion out of the warming that has occured since the Little Ice Age

[Seymour Flops]

​

​

The Effects of the Little Ice Age (c. 1300-1850)​

• The Little Ice Age was a period of wide-spread cooling from around 1300 to around 1850 CE when average global temperatures dropped by as much as 2°C (3.6°F), particularly in Europe and North America.
  
  • Cooling happened in phases, with an initial drop around 1300 and an even colder climate starting around 1560 and lasting to 1850.
  • Changes in climate did not happen uniformly around the globe. Cooling episodes in the Southern Hemisphere, such as in New Zealand and Patagonia, did not occur at the same time as cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Some areas did not even experience cooling, such as eastern China. Europe experienced heavy rainfall while Africa and central and southern Asia experienced droughts. North America experienced both cooler temperatures and a drier period.
• Evidence of cooling can be found in ice cores, tree rings, and other proxy paleoclimatic indicators. Additionally, there are written records from the time period and, beginning in 1659, direct meteorological measurement in Europe.
• Climatologists believe that a combination of reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation and increased volcanism may have caused the Little Ice Age.

So . . . it turns out that natural events actually do affect climate, a fact that apparently escapes adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion.

Humanity did not die out during the Little Ice Age, and it is highly unlikely that we will die out during the warming that follows it. Humanity thrived and spread during the last full-blown Ice Age. No reason the think it won't happen again.

Interesting that tree rings provide evidence of the Little Ice Age. I've never seen any claim of tree rings providing evidence for any current "global warming" period. What would it be called? The Little Warm age? The Age of Earth Fever?

Best name: The Panic that Wasn't.

 

[progressive hunter]

​

​

The Effects of the Little Ice Age (c. 1300-1850)​

• The Little Ice Age was a period of wide-spread cooling from around 1300 to around 1850 CE when average global temperatures dropped by as much as 2°C (3.6°F), particularly in Europe and North America.
  
  • Cooling happened in phases, with an initial drop around 1300 and an even colder climate starting around 1560 and lasting to 1850.
  • Changes in climate did not happen uniformly around the globe. Cooling episodes in the Southern Hemisphere, such as in New Zealand and Patagonia, did not occur at the same time as cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Some areas did not even experience cooling, such as eastern China. Europe experienced heavy rainfall while Africa and central and southern Asia experienced droughts. North America experienced both cooler temperatures and a drier period.
• Evidence of cooling can be found in ice cores, tree rings, and other proxy paleoclimatic indicators. Additionally, there are written records from the time period and, beginning in 1659, direct meteorological measurement in Europe.
• Climatologists believe that a combination of reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation and increased volcanism may have caused the Little Ice Age.

So . . . it turns out that natural events actually do affect climate, a fact that apparently escapes adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion.

Humanity did not die out during the Little Ice Age, and it is highly unlikely that we will die out during the warming that follows it. Humanity thrived and spread during the last full-blown Ice Age. No reason the think it won't happen again.

Interesting that tree rings provide evidence of the Little Ice Age. I've never seen any claim of tree rings providing evidence for any current "global warming" period. What would it be called? The Little Warm age? The Age of Earth Fever?

Best name: The Panic that Wasn't.

there are just some people that need someone or something to follow or they just feel lost,,

 

[Crick]

The Effects of the Little Ice Age (c. 1300-1850)​

• The Little Ice Age was a period of wide-spread cooling from around 1300 to around 1850 CE when average global temperatures dropped by as much as 2°C (3.6°F), particularly in Europe and North America.
  
  • Cooling happened in phases, with an initial drop around 1300 and an even colder climate starting around 1560 and lasting to 1850.
  • Changes in climate did not happen uniformly around the globe. Cooling episodes in the Southern Hemisphere, such as in New Zealand and Patagonia, did not occur at the same time as cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Some areas did not even experience cooling, such as eastern China. Europe experienced heavy rainfall while Africa and central and southern Asia experienced droughts. North America experienced both cooler temperatures and a drier period.
• Evidence of cooling can be found in ice cores, tree rings, and other proxy paleoclimatic indicators. Additionally, there are written records from the time period and, beginning in 1659, direct meteorological measurement in Europe.
• Climatologists believe that a combination of reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation and increased volcanism may have caused the Little Ice Age.

So . . . it turns out that natural events actually do affect climate, a fact that apparently escapes adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion.

Humanity did not die out during the Little Ice Age, and it is highly unlikely that we will die out during the warming that follows it. Humanity thrived and spread during the last full-blown Ice Age. No reason the think it won't happen again.

Interesting that tree rings provide evidence of the Little Ice Age. I've never seen any claim of tree rings providing evidence for any current "global warming" period. What would it be called? The Little Warm age? The Age of Earth Fever?

Best name: The Panic that Wasn't.

Too bad, wrong again

Fennoscandian tree-ring anatomy shows a warmer modern than medieval climate - Nature

Fennoscandian tree-ring anatomy shows a warmer modern than medieval climate​

 

[HeyNorm]

^^^^^^^^^

Teen suicide and depression is at all time highs. These hacks are doing all they can to take all hope of a future away from them.

Truly a death cult.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Too bad, wrong again

Fennoscandian tree-ring anatomy shows a warmer modern than medieval climate - Nature

Fennoscandian tree-ring anatomy shows a warmer modern than medieval climate​

So what?

Suppose the medievel warming period was less warm than the modern period. Other than that climate does indeed change, what does that prove?

At least this was a real piece of research, not some popular magazine or your beloved wiki. You read the title, which I suppose is better than you do for most of the multiple links you keep posting. But you obviously did not even read the abstract, much less analyze all of it for validity and reliability. If you had, you would have noticed this:

This not only calls into question the reliability of models and proxies but also contributes to uncertainty in future climate projections5

By your own cited study, future climate projections are uncertain - duh. So, acting like a petulent child and insisting on having things your way, based on climate projections, is ludicrous.

By the way, the reported greater warming in modern times is confined only to the Fennoscandian Peninsula, which you could not find on a globe, with a flashlight and a magnifying glass.

 

[Crick]

So what?

So what that you're wrong again? I would have thought it would be obvious. It indicates that readers here at USMB would be ill-advised to take your word on this issue - and perhaps others as well.

Suppose the medievel warming period was less warm than the modern period. Other than that climate does indeed change, what does that prove?

It proves that you were wrong when you claimed that dendrochronology didn't show the current, anthropogenic warming trend.

At least this was a real piece of research, not some popular magazine or your beloved wiki.

I have posted more real, peer-reviewed research on this forum than any other poster here. It's quite easy to do when your position is BASED on real, peer-reviewed research.

You read the title, which I suppose is better than you do for most of the multiple links you keep posting. But you obviously did not even read the abstract, much less analyze all of it for validity and reliability. If you had, you would have noticed this:

This not only calls into question the reliability of models and proxies but also contributes to uncertainty in future climate projections5

By your own cited study, future climate projections are uncertain - duh. So, acting like a petulent child and insisting on having things your way, based on climate projections, is ludicrous.

By the way, the reported greater warming in modern times is confined only to the Fennoscandian Peninsula, which you could not find on a globe, with a flashlight and a magnifying glass.

What I notice is how quickly you abandon your original point when it is demonstrated to be false.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So what that you're wrong again? I would have thought it would be obvious. It indicates that readers here at USMB would be ill-advised to take your word on this issue - and perhaps others as well.

It proves that you were wrong when you claimed that dendrochronology didn't show the current, anthropogenic warming trend.

No kidding? Is that really what you thought your link showed? Dude, you really need to start reading these links you keep posting. Your link showed nothing of the kind.

I have posted more real, peer-reviewed research on this forum than any other poster here. It's quite easy to do when your position is BASED on real, peer-reviewed research.

Well, sure, that’s easy when all you do is Google copy and paste and never actually read the links. Nor you ever explain why you think those links support whatever point you are trying to make. By the standard, I can defeat you in every argument by merely posting 12 links if you post 11, 15 if you post 14 and so on.

What I notice is how quickly you abandon your original point when it is demonstrated to be false.

You did not demonstrate it to be false. As I explained, your link is combined to a small geographic area. And, of course, your link contained a statement less than halfway down the abstract which disproves your entire premise. That’s your link doing that, not mine.

 

[Crick]

No kidding? Is that really what you thought your link showed? Dude, you really need to start reading these links you keep posting. Your link showed nothing of the kind.

Well, sure, that’s easy when all you do is Google copy and paste and never actually read the links. Nor you ever explain why you think those links support whatever point you are trying to make. By the standard, I can defeat you in every argument by merely posting 12 links if you post 11, 15 if you post 14 and so on.

You did not demonstrate it to be false. As I explained, your link is combined to a small geographic area. And, of course, your link contained a statement less than halfway down the abstract which disproves your entire premise. That’s your link doing that, not mine.

Dendrochronological data will always be regionally restricted. You claimed none showed current warming. The data in that study proves you wrong. Period.

12 links versus 11 links is a debate.

n links versus 0 links is not. And that's what we have here.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Dendrochronological data will always be regionally restricted. You claimed none showed current warming. The data in that study proves you wrong. Period.

Does it? How is it possible that data from a small peninsula can prove me wrong about the planet?

12 links versus 11 links is a debate.

No, it is not. It’s childish,

n links versus 0 links is not. And that's what we have here.

I not only have posted links, I have quoted from them and explained why they support my assertions. That’s what debate looks like.

Stop lying.

 

[Crick]

Does it? How is it possible that data from a small peninsula can prove me wrong about the planet?

Because you made no such distinction.

No, it is not. It’s childish,

I don't find peer reviewed studies childish.

I not only have posted links, I have quoted from them and explained why they support my assertions. That’s what debate looks like.

I have seen no links to peer reviewed studies in your posts in this forum. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Stop lying.

I'm not. You are.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Because you made no such distinction.

Yes I did.

I don't find peer reviewed studies childish.

Then you should read some of them instead of just posting links. No one is fooled, copy monkey.

I have seen no links to peer reviewed studies in your posts in this forum. Feel free to prove me wrong.

That you haven’t seen them? You probably haven’t seen all the ones I posted. Too busy looking for links to copy and paste.

I'm not. You are.

No you.

 

[Crick]

Yes I did.

No, you did not. You said " I've never seen any claim of tree rings providing evidence for any current "global warming" period."

The keys here are your terms "any", "evidence" and "period". Nothing on the planet is capable ot taking the planet's average temperature in a single measurement. Thus the evidence that dendrochronology would provide for global warming would, necessarily, be regional - as would ANY other measurement. The tree ring data in the study to which I linked most assuredly provided evidence of global warming.

Then you should read some of them instead of just posting links. No one is fooled, copy monkey.

I do read them. Your claims here indicate clearly that you do not and since your education involves no STEM topics at all, I imagine even an attempt on your part would not garner much in the way of acquired knowledge.

That you haven’t seen them? You probably haven’t seen all the ones I posted. Too busy looking for links to copy and paste.

I have now looked at every post in this forum with your name on it since 01 September 2023 and there are NO LINKS TO ANY PEER REVIEWED STUDIES.


So, more of Seymour's lies.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, you did not. You said " I've never seen any claim of tree rings providing evidence for any current "global warming" period."

I haven’t.

The keys here are your terms "any", "evidence" and "period". Nothing on the planet is capable ot taking the planet's average temperature in a single measurement. Thus the evidence that dendrochronology would provide for global warming would, necessarily, be regional - as would ANY other measurement.

Good, good, go on . . .

The tree ring data in the study to which I linked most assuredly provided evidence of global warming.

Nooooo!

One study in one very small region cannot provide evidence for “global” anything. The study did not even purport to show that. As I quoted you from your study:

This not only calls into question the reliability of models and proxies but also contributes to uncertainty in future climate projections5

That statement kills your whole premise, and it is from your OWN link. Missing things like that and blindly posting a link is how I know you don’t read your own links.

I do read them.

Then, how did you miss the above in your very short selection from the study you cited?

Your claims here indicate clearly that you do not and since your education involves no STEM topics at all, I imagine even an attempt on your part would not garner much in the way of acquired knowledge.

I took the required science courses for my undergraduate degree and many advanced math courses for my masters degree. More importantly, though, my education allows me to know how to read research. You could learn on your own, if you would self study instead of just being a link, copy monkey.

I have now looked at every post in this forum with your name on it since 01 September 2023 and there are NO LINKS TO ANY PEER REVIEWED STUDIES.


So, more of Seymour's lies.

Try again. You must have missed one. Were you by chance consuming edibles when you did that?

I think I may have posted one in late August. Or maybe before. Just go back to all of my posts. You clearly have nothing else to do.

 

[Crick]

​

​

The Effects of the Little Ice Age (c. 1300-1850)​

• The Little Ice Age was a period of wide-spread cooling from around 1300 to around 1850 CE when average global temperatures dropped by as much as 2°C (3.6°F), particularly in Europe and North America.
  
  • Cooling happened in phases, with an initial drop around 1300 and an even colder climate starting around 1560 and lasting to 1850.
  • Changes in climate did not happen uniformly around the globe. Cooling episodes in the Southern Hemisphere, such as in New Zealand and Patagonia, did not occur at the same time as cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Some areas did not even experience cooling, such as eastern China. Europe experienced heavy rainfall while Africa and central and southern Asia experienced droughts. North America experienced both cooler temperatures and a drier period.
• Evidence of cooling can be found in ice cores, tree rings, and other proxy paleoclimatic indicators. Additionally, there are written records from the time period and, beginning in 1659, direct meteorological measurement in Europe.
• Climatologists believe that a combination of reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation and increased volcanism may have caused the Little Ice Age.

So . . . it turns out that natural events actually do affect climate, a fact that apparently escapes adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion.

This is false. Mainstream science has never even suggested that natural events don't drive climate change. Characterizing mainstream science as a religion is about as bogus as one can get.

Humanity did not die out during the Little Ice Age, and it is highly unlikely that we will die out during the warming that follows it.

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why would the Earth come back from the LIA by heating so far past where it started?

If you think the current warming is being caused by increased solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation and decreased volcanism, why have none of those changes been observed?

Humanity thrived and spread during the last full-blown Ice Age. No reason the think it won't happen again.

How about a link to a peer reviewed study showing that humanity "thrived" during the last glacial period (not "Ice Age")

Interesting that tree rings provide evidence of the Little Ice Age.

I've never seen any claim of tree rings providing evidence for any current "global warming" period.

If you want to suggest that tree rings aren't a reliable proxy, that would tend to throw the entire LIA into doubt.

What would it be called? The Little Warm age? The Age of Earth Fever?

Best name: The Panic that Wasn't.

The Anthropocene works.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This is false. Mainstream science has never even suggested that natural events don't drive climate change. Characterizing mainstream science as a religion is about as bogus as one can get.

View attachment 896234

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What does that chart mean to you? Please explain.

Why would the Earth come back from the LIA by heating so far past where it started?

Where it started? Where did it start? This is what alarmist don’t understand. There is no “normal“ temperature for the Earth. There is no temperature at which the Earth is “supposed to be” so that anything higher as a fever and anything lower is hypothermia.

The climate changes. Believing that it is humanity that causes the change or that humanity can stop The changes is pretty bizarre.

If you think the current warming is being caused by increased solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation and decreased volcanism, why have none of those changes been observed?

What is your evidence that they have not?

How about a link to a peer reviewed study showing that humanity "thrived" during the last glacial period (not "Ice Age")

Yawn . . .

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

If you want to suggest that tree rings aren't a reliable proxy, that would tend to throw the entire LIA into doubt.

I never said that tree rings are not a reliable indicator of past events. I agree with the statement in the link that YOU provided that:

This not only calls into question the reliability of models and proxies but also contributes to uncertainty in future climate projections5

The Anthropocene works.

20 years from now, global warming“ will be like the pet rock 20 years later. Everyone remembered it, but nobody would admit that they bought it.

don’t believe me? Find somebody who was around in the 70s and admits that they were frightened about the “coming ice age“

 

[Crick]

I haven’t.

Then you admit your comment was irrelevant and meaningless. That's an improvement.

Good, good, go on . . .

Nooooo!

Yesssss! The temperatures registered by the thermometer hanging outside my kitchen window are evidence of global warming.

One study in one very small region cannot provide evidence for “global” anything. The study did not even purport to show that. As I quoted you from your study:

This not only calls into question the reliability of models and proxies but also contributes to uncertainty in future climate projections5

That statement kills your whole premise, and it is from your OWN link. Missing things like that and blindly posting a link is how I know you don’t read your own links.

Let's look at the entire abstract:

Abstract​

Earth system models and various climate proxy sources indicate global warming is unprecedented during at least the Common Era1. However, tree-ring proxies often estimate temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950–1250 CE) that are similar to, or exceed, those recorded for the past century2,3, in contrast to simulation experiments at regional scales4. This not only calls into question the reliability of models and proxies but also contributes to uncertainty in future climate projections5. Here we show that the current climate of the Fennoscandian Peninsula is substantially warmer than that of the medieval period. This highlights the dominant role of anthropogenic forcing in climate warming even at the regional scale, thereby reconciling inconsistencies between reconstructions and model simulations. We used an annually resolved 1,170-year-long tree-ring record that relies exclusively on tracheid anatomical measurements from Pinus sylvestris trees, providing high-fidelity measurements of instrumental temperature variability during the warm season. We therefore call for the construction of more such millennia-long records to further improve our understanding and reduce uncertainties around historical and future climate change at inter-regional and eventually global scales.​

​

The authors are not saying that their data make global warming less likely. They are saying that their data indicate that global warming is worse than previously thought.

Then, how did you miss the above in your very short selection from the study you cited?

I didn't. You either misinterpreted it or thought you could get away with disingenuously suggesting that it meant something it did not.

I took the required science courses for my undergraduate degree and many advanced math courses for my masters degree.

Where did you develop your abysmal opinion of mainstream science?

More importantly, though, my education allows me to know how to read research.

That has NOT been what we've seen here. And no amount of reading psychology and social studies is going to gift you with an understanding of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.

You could learn on your own, if you would self study instead of just being a link, copy monkey.

You could learn on your own, if you would only read.

Try again. You must have missed one. Were you by chance consuming edibles when you did that?

Once again, deniers, unable to argue the science have moved to personal attacks.

I think I may have posted one in late August. Or maybe before. Just go back to all of my posts. You clearly have nothing else to do.

Since you've narrowed it down, you should have no problem locating such a thing, though you and I both know you've you won't waste your time. We both know you've never posted a link to a peer reviewed study on global warming. I assume you know your position is false and that you claim it for political reasons only and that no peer reviewed study will support you. That's the problem you're going to have with researchers actually using the scientific method - it has a tendency to eliminate falsehoods before they can be pushed, doesn't it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then you admit your comment was irrelevant and meaningless. That's an improvement.

Yesssss! The temperatures registered by the thermometer hanging outside my kitchen window are evidence of global warming.

Let's look at the entire abstract:

Just address the statement I’ve quoted three times now from your own link. Do you disavow it?

Abstract​

Earth system models and various climate proxy sources indicate global warming is unprecedented during at least the Common Era1. However, tree-ring proxies often estimate temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950–1250 CE) that are similar to, or exceed, those recorded for the past century2,3, in contrast to simulation experiments at regional scales4. This not only calls into question the reliability of models and proxies but also contributes to uncertainty in future climate projections5. Here we show that the current climate of the Fennoscandian Peninsula is substantially warmer than that of the medieval period. This highlights the dominant role of anthropogenic forcing in climate warming even at the regional scale, thereby reconciling inconsistencies between reconstructions and model simulations. We used an annually resolved 1,170-year-long tree-ring record that relies exclusively on tracheid anatomical measurements from Pinus sylvestris trees, providing high-fidelity measurements of instrumental temperature variability during the warm season. We therefore call for the construction of more such millennia-long records to further improve our understanding and reduce uncertainties around historical and future climate change at inter-regional and eventually global scales.​

So what if it is substantially warmer in that one region? What does that prove other than that climate changes? I don’t think anyone with half a brain needed that proven to them.

The authors are not saying that their data make global warming less likely. They are saying that their data indicate that global warming is worse than previously thought.

I didn’t interpret it that way at all. Mainly because I don’t think the authors are fools. It would take a fool to say that such localized data indicates anything about “global warming“

I didn't. You either misinterpreted it or thought you could get away with disingenuously suggesting that it meant something it did not.

How did I misinterpret it? I quoted it exactly. How are you interpreting it that’s different from the words that I quoted?

Where did you develop your abysmal opinion of mainstream science?

“Mainstream science” is a meaningless phrase. Science is constantly evolving, constantly seeking new information.

That’s what real science does.

What you are talking about is dogma and not science. I developed an abysmal opinion of the dogma of climate change, when I realize that it was nothing more than the latest pseudoscientific apocalyptic scam, heavily funded by governments around the world as a way to maintain control over their population.

That has NOT been what we've seen here. And no amount of reading psychology and social studies is going to gift you with an understanding of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.

I assume you’re wanting to tell us your awesome credentials in physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

You could learn on your own, if you would only read.

Once again, deniers, unable to argue the science have moved to personal attacks.

You create OP that always consist of a personal attack on people, that disagree with you. That is your opener. Then further name-calling, and personal attacks on anyone who questions you. So yes, I agree when people run out of science they fall on personal attacks.

You, Crick, are the poster boy for that.

Since you've narrowed it down, you should have no problem locating such a thing, though you and I both know you've you won't waste your time. We both know you've never posted a link to a peer reviewed study on global warming. I assume you know your position is false and that you claim it for political reasons only and that no peer reviewed study will support you. That's the problem you're going to have with researchers actually using the scientific method - it has a tendency to eliminate falsehoods before they can be pushed, doesn't it.

Before I bother finding you peer review reviewed research on global warming, not counting the peer reviewed research you provided that said the opposite of what you want us to believe, how about you Admit that you asked me to provide reviewed research about humanity, thriving during the Ice Age and I did?


Just common courtesy to say thank you when someone gives you exactly what you asked for, isn’t it?

 

[Crick]

What does that chart mean to you? Please explain.

It indicates that current warming is not a rebound from the LIA.

Where it started? Where did it start? This is what alarmist don’t understand. There is no “normal“ temperature for the Earth. There is no temperature at which the Earth is “supposed to be” so that anything higher as a fever and anything lower is hypothermia.

You yourself said it began about 1300, so toss that. There is a range of temperatures and a range of temperature change rates under which homo sapiens has lived. As I have stated here repeatedly, it is not the absolute temperature that is the problem, it is the rate at which it is changing. That is, of course, also the position of mainstream science.

The climate changes. Believing that it is humanity that causes the change or that humanity can stop The changes is pretty bizarre.

Not to anyone that has actually examined and understood the evidence. And what evidence do YOU have that it is "pretty bizarre"?

What is your evidence that they have not?

Because solar output (TSI), atmospheric circulation and volcanism are all closely monitored and have shown no changes that would produce the observed warming. What the fuck did you think?

Yawn . . .

I'm terribly sorry that you find the idea of providing scientific evidence for your contentions such a bore. Perhaps you could or should just drop out of this forum. It's not as if you're accomplishing anything productive here.

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

"At the macro-evolutionary level Foley showed for hominids that extinction, rather than speciation, correlates with environmental change as recorded in the deep sea record."
" The results indicate that climate affects population contraction rather than expansion."

None of this indicates that hominids or homo sapiens "thrived" during glacial periods. The graph above indicates the exact opposite.

I never said that tree rings are not a reliable indicator of past events. I agree with the statement in the link that YOU provided that:

This not only calls into question the reliability of models and proxies but also contributes to uncertainty in future climate projections5

Yes, you argued that no tree ring data supported global warming, remember?

20 years from now, global warming“ will be like the pet rock 20 years later. Everyone remembered it, but nobody would admit that they bought it.

don’t believe me? Find somebody who was around in the 70s and admits that they were frightened about the “coming ice age“

And you think that qualifies as a refutation of the science to be found at www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/? This looks like a classic case of Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias

 

[Seymour Flops]

It indicates that current warming is not a rebound from the LIA.

I never said anything about a “rebound“ it is a bizarre term to use when talking about the climate.

You yourself said it began about 1300, so toss that. There is a range of temperatures and a range of temperature change rates under which homo sapiens has lived. As I have stated here repeatedly, it is not the absolute temperature that is the problem, it is the rate at which it is changing. That is, of course, also the position of mainstream science.

Oh, it is the rate at which it is changing? How fast did it change between 2000 and 2020?

Not to anyone that has actually examined and understood the evidence. And what evidence do YOU have that it is "pretty bizarre"?

Because solar output (TSI), atmospheric circulation and volcanism are all closely monitored and have shown no changes that would produce the observed warming. What the fuck did you think?

I thought, since you seem so sure, that you would have some actual evidence. Not absence of evidence. I guess you haven’t read enough about science to know the truism “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

I'm terribly sorry that you find the idea of providing scientific evidence for your contentions such a bore. Perhaps you could or should just drop out of this forum. It's not as if you're accomplishing anything productive here.

I’m enjoying watching you posture and pretend that you know something about science when an actual fact you are an overage petulant child.

"At the macro-evolutionary level Foley showed for hominids that extinction, rather than speciation, correlates with environmental change as recorded in the deep sea record."
" The results indicate that climate affects population contraction rather than expansion."

View attachment 896293

None of this indicates that hominids or homo sapiens "thrived" during glacial periods. The graph above indicates the exact opposite.

Not at all. You did not read it thoroughly enough. Humanity as we know it came from that time.

I’m not going to go find it for you again. It state something to the effect that during the glacial period humanity became one species, but much more widespread over the Earth. That’s thriving. That’s what made humanity, the dominant force on earth. We will continue to dominate it no matter what Anti-humans such as yourself wish would happen.

Yes, you argued that no tree ring data supported global warming, remember?

I believe I said, no local tree ringing data could support the idea of global warming. Perhaps you could get some help with reading Comprehension?

And you think that qualifies as a refutation of the science to be found at www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/? This looks like a classic case of Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias

Dunning/Kruger effect? Another thing for which you are the poster boy.

Just tell us your credentials, please.

 

[Crick]

I never said anything about a “rebound“ it is a bizarre term to use when talking about the climate.

You did not. But it was implied in your statement, "Humanity did not die out during the Little Ice Age, and it is highly unlikely that we will die out during the warming that follows it" and it is a common position around here.

Oh, it is the rate at which it is changing? How fast did it change between 2000 and 2020?

Yes, it is the rate at which it is changing. That has always been the concern.

Rate of change of global average temperature

Information on the environment for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the general public

www.eea.europa.eu

And to save you your next question: "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years." (0.008 - 0.0014C/decade) Global Warming.

I thought, since you seem so sure, that you would have some actual evidence. Not absence of evidence. I guess you haven’t read enough about science to know the truism “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

I love the way folks on your side of this argument put so much faith into your little homilies. You asked what was the evidence that changes in solar output, atmospheric changes and volcanism had not been seen to change in any way that could have brought on the observed warming. I finding it harder and harder to believe that you have even an undergraduate degree in any topic shy of basket weaving and sunset watching.

I’m enjoying watching you posture and pretend that you know something about science when an actual fact you are an overage petulant child.

I'm satisfied to see you demonstrate over and over and over again that deniers have no intention nor ability to argue the science of this topic and instead resort solely to personal attacks.

Not at all. You did not read it thoroughly enough. Humanity as we know it came from that time.

That does not mean humans thrived during glacial periods. What the study found was that climate change led to contractions of human population and migration to avoid harsh envirnoments.

I’m not going to go find it for you again. It state something to the effect that during the glacial period humanity became one species, but much more widespread over the Earth.

That was the concluding sentence of the Abstract. Did you ever read anything else there? If you had you might have seen:

At this scale, expansion and contraction of the population are both well documented. The former is not strongly linked to climate change while the latter is, as the Younger Dryas case shows.​

AND

The situation in the Younger Dryas, population event 5, is much less clear (Richards et al. 2000) but it may have formed a constriction that was significant for further genetic diversity when the population grew in the Holocene.​

The replacement of Neanderthal by Homo was enabled by our greater ability to exploit varying climatic conditions and explore larger distances for suitable habitats. We succeeded because we tended to migrate in the face of change while Neanderthal tended to hunker down, not because we thrived during glacial periods.

That’s thriving. That’s what made humanity, the dominant force on earth. We will continue to dominate it no matter what Anti-humans such as yourself wish would happen.

I would argue that pushing ignorance; rejecting well-established mainstream science, is about an "anti-human" as you can get.

I believe I said, no local tree ringing data could support the idea of global warming. Perhaps you could get some help with reading Compre

Are you unaware that our posts are right on this screen above. You cannot lie about what you have and have not said. You did NOT use the word "local". What you ACTUALLY said was "Interesting that tree rings provide evidence of the Little Ice Age. I've never seen any claim of tree rings providing evidence for any current "global warming" period."

Just tell us, your credentials, please.

I have already told you my credentials and everyone here has heard them on multiple occasions. I'm still curious what might be the topic of your second Masters. I found it a little odd that you said you had two but only discussed one of them.