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

[Crick]

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

Of course not.

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.

It is evidence that, along with similar proxy evidence and the superior evidence of instrument data from all over the planet, shows that the world has been getting warmer at an unprecedented rate since the Industrial Revolution.

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“

That was never the purpose of their study. The only purpose for which I selected that study was to refute your previous claim by making use of contemporaneous dendrochronological data.

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

Context, young man, context.

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

My intent with the term here is to indicate theories held as valid by a majority consensus: the "mainstream"; not an unusual usage. AGW is held as valid by an exceptionally large proportion of actively researching climate scientists. AGW is mainstream science..

That’s what real science does.

Science always seeks new knowedge but due to the enormous success of Francis Bacon's scientific method, great swaths of it these days do not change. And the longer science is unable to falsify a theory, the more closely it begins to resemble facts. And, relatively speaking, AGW IS brand new. Newton didn't develop it as he did the work in Principia, 337 years ago, and which is still held valid in non-relativistic circumstances.

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.

What evidence drove you to a "realization" that it was pseudo science?
What evidence drove you to a "realization" that it was a scam?
What evidence drove you to a "realization" that its purpose was to maintain governmental control of populations?

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

I've already told you and everyone here already knows. The only thing that really matters is that I have had all that coursework and used it professionally while you have done neither.

You create OP that always consist of a personal attack on people, that disagree with you.

That is false. And what does "...some have made an apocalyptic religion..." do if not attack people who 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.

I start name calling under a few specific circumstances: bad science, no science, conjectures that fail a basic sanity test and liars. And unless my issue with a poster has already been repeatedly demonstrated, I make certain to demonstrate what they have done before I apply an appropriate sobriquet.

You, Crick, are the poster boy for that.

That you think so, like virtually EVERYTHING you think to be so - or at least SAY you think to be so - means absolutely nothing to me.

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?

You provided a link to peer reviewed research for the first time in this forum since at least 01 January 2023. That research did not show what you thought it showed, but you did get the link up.

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

Or even if all they did was make the attempt.

 

[ding]

It is evidence that, along with similar proxy evidence and the superior evidence of instrument data from all over the planet, shows that the world has been getting warmer at an unprecedented rate since the Industrial Revolution.

No, the warming trend began at the glacial maximum of the "Little Ice Age."

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[ding]

What evidence drove you to a "realization" that it was pseudo science?

For me it was their computer models, their attempt to squelch challenges, their lack of transparency of GHG effect and feedback from GHG effect and their failure to discuss the features of the planet that affect the climate of the planet the most. All four of which lead to red flags for me.

 

[Crick]

No, the warming trend began at the glacial maximum of the "Little Ice Age."

what is the glacial maximum of the Little Ice Age?

 

[ding]

what is the glacial maximum of the Little Ice Age?

The coldest point reached. The point where the warming began.

 

[Crick]

The coldest point reached. The point where the warming began.

What led you to call that point the "glacial maximum"?

 

[ding]

What led you to call that point the "glacial maximum"?

Glacial which means cold and maximum which means most, ergo the coldest point. So whatever you want to call that point it doesn't really matter because all that matters is the point at which it warmed from which is about 400 years ago.

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

The Little Ice Age was a real event in the past. So is the warming that followed, that we are in right now.

But that has nothing to do with any "rebound." "Rebound" implies that there is a natural temperature that the Earth should default to, like a basketball rebounds from the backboard and falling toward the floor due to gravity. There is no such force that pulls Earth's temperature into some default temperature. Earth's temperature is what it is, and is not required to follow any plan you have for it.

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

View attachment 896391

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

So, what happened in 1945 through 1965, when rate-of-change was below the average since 1860? The Industrial revolution stop?

Gee, my history book calls that the "postwar boom" generation, because of the rapid spread of industrialization, as the west and east competed to strengthen its spheres of influence. Yet the rate of change was lower than average.

How could that have happened?

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.

How many degrees has it risen since the IR?

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 don't care at all whether you believe me. The fact is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

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.

Which made us stronger as a species. That was my whole point. I guess you millenials were never taught that advsersity builds character, and that what does not kill you makes you stronger. That trial by climate made humanity strong and we thrives.

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.​

Yes, weaker (from an evolutionary standpoint) humans who were competing for resources made more scarce by the cold died off, and left the better fit to thrive.

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.

Yeah, we thrived. Why are you saying we did not thrive, but providing examples that we did?

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

What exactly is "mainstream science?"

You are not aware that science is not a consensus, but a constant search for knowledge and a testing of existing knowledge?

Do you know that "questioning science" is exactly how one does science? Newtonian gravity was once "well-established" science. Before that heliocentric models and before that geocentric models.

Nothing stopped the forward motion of science . . . except . . . those times when political leaders decided science had to be stopped in its tracks in order for them to maintain their power. The most common method was to pretend that the beliefs they needed us to have actually were science, and that any skepticism about them was somehow "anti-science."

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."

I would have thought it would be obvious from the context that the author fo that study only looked at tree rings in a small area, since the author stated it.

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.

What are they? I honestly don't remember. I don't mind repeating mine, so I'm sure you have no problem repeating yours.

My first masters was in Special Education. I was disasatified with it, because it was primarly a guide to advocacy for our students' civil rights in education and in life. An important topic, but I was already doing that long before starting grad school, and the courses I took were more motivational than informative.

My second masters was much more scientific - Educational Psychology. Anyone presenting such unsupported conclusions, mixed with dire warnings and emotional appeals that the global warming alarmists use as scientific research, would have been laughed out of my program.

For example, did you know that IQ tests are based on strongly supported science? Did you know that social sciences and politics have pressured the scientific psychology community to drop them, or to state that they are not scientific?

They have stood firm, when they have bowed to pressure in other areas, so I am proud to be among them.

 

[ding]

But that has nothing to do with any "rebound." "Rebound" implies that there is a natural temperature that the Earth should default to, like a basketball rebounds from the backboard and falling toward the floor due to gravity.

Call it what you want but it does keep warming up to a certain temperature range before reversing itself. It makes sense that if glacial periods are triggered by disruption from heat circulation from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arctic Ocean that it would take a very long time to warm back up to its pre-glacial temperature after heat circulation is restored. Before triggering of course the next glacial period. Temperatures drop quickly because of glaciation and then gradually warm back up. It's a three million year trend. I don't see that changing. The same conditions which led to a cooling planet still exist today. The earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. That's what the empirical climate evidence shows in an overwhelming fashion.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Call it what you want but it does keep warming up to a certain temperature range before reversing itself. It makes sense that if glacial periods are triggered by disruption from heat circulation from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arctic Ocean that it would take a very long time to warm back up to its pre-glacial temperature after heat circulation is restored. Before triggering of course the next glacial period. Temperatures drop quickly because of glaciation and then gradually warm back up. It's a three million year trend. I don't see that changing. The same conditions which led to a cooling planet still exist today. The earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. That's what the empirical climate evidence shows in an overwhelming fashion.

Well, yes, the Earth has been cooling since it was formed, when it was a molton blob. Aside from that cooling, once the atmosphere formed, and water covered most of the Earth, there were periods of cooling and warming, most often localized, but sometimes showing a global trend. We call that "climate" and the climate is always changing.

None of that has anything to do with the left's desire to slow or stop U.S. industrialization while watching unconcerned the industrialization of Russia, China, and India grow as they seemingly compete to be the world's largest producers of carbon.

 

[Crick]

The Little Ice Age was a real event in the past. So is the warming that followed, that we are in right now.

Yes, it was real, but it was regional and it was done over a century ago: "The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or in the early 20th century."

1. Hendy, Erica J.; Gagan, Michael K.; Alibert, Chantal A.; McCulloch, Malcolm T.; Lough, Janice M.; Isdale, Peter J. (2002). "Abrupt Decrease in Tropical Pacific Sea Surface Salinity at End of Little Ice Age". Science. 295 (5559): 1511–1514. Bibcode:2002Sci...295.1511H. doi:10.1126/science.1067693. PMID 11859191. S2CID 25698190.
2. ^ Ogilvie, A. E. J.; Jónsson, T. (2001). "'Little Ice Age' Research: A Perspective from Iceland". Climatic Change. 48: 9–52. doi:10.1023/A:1005625729889. S2CID 189870320.
3. ^ Porter, S. C. "Anout; Quaternary Science". INQUA. Archived from the original on 15 April 2010. Retrieved 6 May 2010.

But that has nothing to do with any "rebound." "Rebound" implies that there is a natural temperature that the Earth should default to, like a basketball rebounds from the backboard and falling toward the floor due to gravity. There is no such force that pulls Earth's temperature into some default temperature. Earth's temperature is what it is, and is not required to follow any plan you have for it.

I agree with you. I have argued on numerous occasions with numerous people here claiming that the climate has some elastic rebound that drives it towards some "natural" value. It was your phrasing "... during the warming that follows it" that led me to believe that you also believe the current warming is part and parcel of our recovery from the LIA cooling. And then when you asked how did I know the current warming didn't have the same causes as those provided for the LIA, how was I to think anything else of your position?

So, what happened in 1945 through 1965, when rate-of-change was below the average since 1860? The Industrial revolution stop?

No. The massive industrial increase as well as the military activities of the war (explosives) is believed to have significantly increases sulfate aerosols which increase the Earth's albedo. I am wondering if you have ever had calculus.

Gee, my history book calls that the "postwar boom" generation, because of the rapid spread of industrialization, as the west and east competed to strengthen its spheres of influence. Yet the rate of change was lower than average.

Don't get confused. If temperatures climbed like mad and then stopped at some elevated value, the rate graph would show a peak and then drop rapidly off to zero. If global temperatures went from extremely high to very slightly less extremely high, the rate graph would go negative.

How could that have happened?

Because I suspect you never took calculus.

How many degrees has it risen since the IR?

1.3C

I don't care at all whether you believe me. The fact is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But it certainly doesn't justify an assumption that the unfound evidence DOES exist. Besides, in this case, there is no absence. Solar output, atmospheric changes and volcanism were all monitored. We KNOW what they were all doing and they were NOT making the planet hotter. Two masters? Really?

Which made us stronger as a species. That was my whole point.

THRIVE: prosper, fluorish, not strenghen. Now I will admit that your study does show that climate change enabled the different approaches with which homo sapiens and neanderthalis addressed such problems to get our sort spread across the countryside which enhanced our viability once the Holocene had come and made the world as a whole a more pleasant place. But cold weather did not make us thrive, prosper or fluorish, our brains did.

I guess you millenials were never taught that advsersity builds character, and that what does not kill you makes you stronger.

Oi vey.

That trial by climate made humanity strong and we thrives.

We thrived AFTER the trial. That is expressly what your linked study states.

Yes, weaker (from an evolutionary standpoint) humans who were competing for resources made more scarce by the cold died off, and left the better fit to thrive.

Homo sapiens were eventually successful because we had migrated when conditions deteriorated while neanderthals did not.

Yeah, we thrived. Why are you saying we did not, but provided examples that we did?

God you're annoying. I am saying that cold, glacial weather did NOT make homo sapiens thrive. It caused our population to plummet. But it made us migratory which was very helpful when it warmed back up.

What exactly is "mainstream science?"

The science of the mainstream. Theories accepted by the majority consensus.

You are not aware that science is not a consensus, but a constant search for knowledge and a testing of existing knowledge?

Your English is good enough that you really ought to feel guilty when you have to construct crap like that to make some denier-mandated point. The existence of a consensus among scientists expert in a field is how the acceptance of a theory is judged. I am not arguing that we should stop doing research and just measure consensus. That a very large percentage - a strong consensus - of actively researching climate scientists accept the conclusions of the IPCC (which are formed from an assessment of their work) is an indication that those conclusions express WIDELY ACCEPTED SCIENCE.

Do you know that "questioning science" is exactly how one does science?

It's one way, but it's not a very efficient strategy. Better strategies are to investgate the unknown or to look where one already has reason to believe mistakes have been made.

Newtonian gravity was once "well-established" science.

This is what comes of your lack of STEM training.

In Physics a "theory" is a mathematical model based on various assumptions and valid for a limited range of physical conditions. Newton's laws are a mathematical model that is limited to non-relativistic speeds and low gravitational fields, and within those limits it is exceedingly accurate. There is NO sense in which Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. What relativity did is expand the range of physical conditions over which the theory applied. Special relativity extended the range to include high speeds, and general relativity extended it again to include high gravitational fields. Even GR is not applicable everywhere because it fails at singularities like the centre of black holes. We expect that some future theory (string theory?) will extend GR to describe places that are singular in GR.​

​

Newtonian gravity vs. general relativity: exactly how wrong is Newton?

Is there a simple function I can use to describe the difference between simple Newtonian dynamics and the actual observed motion? Or maybe some ratios for common examples of, say, the motion of sta...

physics.stackexchange.com

​

Before that heliocentric models and before that geocentric models.

The entire solar system actually rotates around its combined center of mass, but that point is well within the surface of the sun. We ARE heliocentric. It is not some silly archaism. Geocentricity was the one that was discarded by the work of Copernicus and Galileo.

Nothing stopped the forward motion of science . . . except . . . those times when political leaders decided science had to be stopped in its tracks in order for them to maintain their power.

Do you have some examples? Stalin's Lamarckism comes to mind, but that was not all science and it wasn't stopped, it was simply forced to go in a direction it shouldn't have and wouldn't have, left to its own devices. The biggest obstacle to the free exercise of science has been the Church and religious belief in general, not politicians. It was the Church that punished Galileo, not the Duke of Florence.

The most common method was to pretend that the beliefs they needed us to have actually were science, and that any skepticism about them was somehow "anti-science."

Again, do you have an example?

I would have thought it would be obvious from the context that the author fo that study only looked at tree rings in a small area, since the author stated it.

I never said otherwise. As I've said elsewhere, I only used that study because it refuted your claim. I wasn't using it to support AGW or even FSM.

What are they? I honestly don't remember. I don't mind repeating mine, so I'm sure you have no problem repeating yours.

There's no point in it unless you fear you're losing this debate. But you first.

My first masters was in Special Education. I was disasatified with it, because it was primarly a guide to advocacy for our students' civil rights in education and in life. An important topic, but I was already doing that long before starting grad school, and the courses I took were more motivational than informative.

My second masters was much more scientific - Educational Psychology.

Yes. I apologize as I think I was wrong when I said you had only identified one of these. They both now seem familiar. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering. I went to college, ran out of money, joined the Navy and became a submarine sonar tech, got out, used the GI Bill to finsh my degree and then went to work for the Navy, then NATO testing sensors and weapon systems on the ships, subs and helicopters of NATO member nation navies. I worked on all manner of kit, but my strong point was submarine sonars.

Anyone presenting such unsupported conclusions, mixed with dire warnings and emotional appeals that the global warming alarmists use as scientific research, would have been laughed out of my program.

That's a rather pathetic comment. Cllimate scientists have not been using emotional appeals or presented unsupported conclusions. They have been using science and the scientific method. And I'm quit certain very few climate PhDs would be particularly upset about your threat of being laughed out of an education program.

For example, did you know that IQ tests are based on strongly supported science?

Does that have something to do with this conversation, this thread or this forum?

Did you know that social sciences and politics have pressured the scientific psychology community to drop them, or to state that they are not scientific?

Who wants who to drop whom? And why? Pardon my French, but who the fuck cares? Jesus, dude, get a fucking life.

They have stood firm, when they have bowed to pressure in other areas, so I am proud to be among them.

HAHAHAHAaaaa.... wow... wow... well, you know what they say: "Pride goeth before wasting your day on a discussion board."

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, it was real, but it was regional and it was done over a century ago: "The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or in the early 20th century."

1. Hendy, Erica J.; Gagan, Michael K.; Alibert, Chantal A.; McCulloch, Malcolm T.; Lough, Janice M.; Isdale, Peter J. (2002). "Abrupt Decrease in Tropical Pacific Sea Surface Salinity at End of Little Ice Age". Science. 295 (5559): 1511–1514. Bibcode:2002Sci...295.1511H. doi:10.1126/science.1067693. PMID 11859191. S2CID 25698190.
2. ^ Ogilvie, A. E. J.; Jónsson, T. (2001). "'Little Ice Age' Research: A Perspective from Iceland". Climatic Change. 48: 9–52. doi:10.1023/A:1005625729889. S2CID 189870320.
3. ^ Porter, S. C. "Anout; Quaternary Science". INQUA. Archived from the original on 15 April 2010. Retrieved 6 May 2010.

I agree with you. I have argued on numerous occasions with numerous people here claiming that the climate has some elastic rebound that drives it towards some "natural" value. It was your phrasing "... during the warming that follows it" that led me to believe that you also believe the current warming is part and parcel of our recovery from the LIA cooling. And then when you asked how did I know the current warming didn't have the same causes as those provided for the LIA, how was I to think anything else of your position?

Let's accept something we agree on, without me trying to figure out how you got so off track.

No. The massive industrial increase as well as the military activities of the war (explosives) is believed to have significantly increases sulfate aerosols which increase the Earth's albedo.

"Believed?" Believed by who, and based on what science?

I am wondering if you have ever had calculus.

I was wondering if you were ever going to share your credentials. Then, I stopped wondering, assuming that if you felt that you had to in order to save face, there's no reason to think you would be honest about it.

Don't get confused. If temperatures climbed like mad and then stopped at some elevated value, the rate graph would show a peak and then drop rapidly off to zero. If global temperatures went from extremely high to very slightly less extremely high, the rate graph would go negative.

Wait, why would it drop off rapidly to zero?

If this is a graph of the rate of change, and not of temperature, the graph could show lower than average rate of change if the temperature went from "extremely high" to "very slightly more extemely high," also.

That assumes, falsely, that there is such a thing as "extremely high," in regards to Earth's temperature. To assume that, we must assume a "normal" temperature. What is that normal temperature that you are assuming, and how do you know that it is the norm?

Because I suspect you never took calculus.

Non-sequitor.

1.3C

But it certainly doesn't justify an assumption that the unfound evidence DOES exist. Besides, in this case, there is no absence. Solar output, atmospheric changes and volcanism were all monitored. We KNOW what they were all doing and they were NOT making the planet hotter. Two masters? Really?

THRIVE: prosper, fluorish, not strenghen. Now I will admit that your study does show that climate change enabled the different approaches with which homo sapiens and neanderthalis addressed such problems to get our sort spread across the countryside which enhanced our viability once the Holocene had come and made the world as a whole a more pleasant place. But cold weather did not make us thrive, prosper or fluorish, our brains did.

Oi vey.

We thrived AFTER the trial. That is expressly what your linked study states.

Homo sapiens were eventually successful because we had migrated when conditions deteriorated while neanderthals did not.

God you're annoying. I am saying that cold, glacial weather did NOT make homo sapiens thrive. It caused our population to plummet. But it made us migratory which was very helpful when it warmed back up.

The science of the mainstream. Theories accepted by the majority consensus.

Your English is good enough that you really ought to feel guilty when you have to construct crap like that to make some denier-mandated point. The existence of a consensus among scientists expert in a field is how the acceptance of a theory is judged. I am not arguing that we should stop doing research and just measure consensus. That a very large percentage - a strong consensus - of actively researching climate scientists accept the conclusions of the IPCC (which are formed from an assessment of their work) is an indication that those conclusions express WIDELY ACCEPTED SCIENCE.

It's one way, but it's not a very efficient strategy. Better strategies are to investgate the unknown or to look where one already has reason to believe mistakes have been made.

This is what comes of your lack of STEM training.

In Physics a "theory" is a mathematical model based on various assumptions and valid for a limited range of physical conditions. Newton's laws are a mathematical model that is limited to non-relativistic speeds and low gravitational fields, and within those limits it is exceedingly accurate. There is NO sense in which Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. What relativity did is expand the range of physical conditions over which the theory applied. Special relativity extended the range to include high speeds, and general relativity extended it again to include high gravitational fields. Even GR is not applicable everywhere because it fails at singularities like the centre of black holes. We expect that some future theory (string theory?) will extend GR to describe places that are singular in GR.​

​

Newtonian gravity vs. general relativity: exactly how wrong is Newton?

Is there a simple function I can use to describe the difference between simple Newtonian dynamics and the actual observed motion? Or maybe some ratios for common examples of, say, the motion of sta...

physics.stackexchange.com

​

The entire solar system actually rotates around its combined center of mass, but that point is well within the surface of the sun. We ARE heliocentric. It is not some silly archaism. Geocentricity was the one that was discarded by the work of Copernicus and Galileo.

Do you have some examples? Stalin's Lamarckism comes to mind, but that was not all science and it wasn't stopped, it was simply forced to go in a direction it shouldn't have and wouldn't have, left to its own devices. The biggest obstacle to the free exercise of science has been the Church and religious belief in general, not politicians. It was the Church that punished Galileo, not the Duke of Florence.

Again, do you have an example?

I never said otherwise. As I've said elsewhere, I only used that study because it refuted your claim. I wasn't using it to support AGW or even FSM.

There's no point in it unless you fear you're losing this debate. But you first.

Yes. I apologize as I think I was wrong when I said you had only identified one of these. They both now seem familiar. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering. I went to college, ran out of money, joined the Navy and became a submarine sonar tech, got out, used the GI Bill to finsh my degree and then went to work for the Navy, then NATO testing sensors and weapon systems on the ships, subs and helicopters of NATA member nation navies. I worked on all manner of stuff, but my strong point was submarine sonars.

That's a rather pathetic comment. Cllimate scientists have not been using emotional appeals, they have been using science. And I'm quit certain very few climate PhDs would be too upset about your threat of being laughed out of a education program.

Does that have something to do with this conversation, this thread or this forum?

Who wants who to drop whom? And why? Pardon my French, but who the fuck cares? Jesus, dude, get a fucking life.

HAHAHAHAaaaa.... wow... wow... well, you know what they say: "Pride goeth before wasting your day on a discussion board."

Anyway . . . this has become boring, and you clearly have a lot of time on your hands. You lost me at "science of the mainstream," when I asked what "mainstream science" is.

I congratulate you on managing to finish your bachelors degree, and that calculus course you seem so proud of. I thank you for your service.

You are welcome to move on to the thread where people explain how any observed increases in temperature since the Industrial Revolution are harming humans or other life on Earth.

 

[Crick]

Let's accept something we agree on, without me trying to figure out how you got so off track.

"Believed?" Believed by who, and based on what science?

First you call me names for posting links and say we should be debating from our own minds. Now you want the links?

Here is a good overview with a few references to more scholarly articles if you prefer. Earth’s Temperature Tracker.

I was wondering if you were ever going to share your credentials. Then, I stopped wondering, assuming that if you felt that you had to in order to save face, there's no reason to think you would be honest about it.

I provided my credentials. So, fuck you.

Wait, why would it drop off rapidly to zero?

Because steady temperature has zero change. No calculus, right?

If this is a graph of the rate of change, and not of temperature, the graph could show lower than average rate of change if the temperature went from "extremely high" to "very slightly more extemely high," also.

Temperatures dropping, whether from 100 to -100 or 100 to 99, have a negative rate of change.

That assumes, falsely, that there is such a thing as "extremely high," in regards to Earth's temperature. To assume that, we must assume a "normal" temperature. What is that normal temperature that you are assuming, and how do you know that it is the norm.

I was attempting to explain some basic math. I wasn't talking about real world temperatures. Sorry I lost you.

Non-sequitor.

I will take that as an affirmation.

Anyway . . . this has become boring, and you clearly have a lot of time on your hands.

I am retired and I'm attempting to keep my mind exercised.

I congratulate you on managing to finish your bachelors degree, and that calculus course you seem so proud of. I thank you for your service.

I'm in South Florida and my wife and I got caught by in a parking lot for a good half hour by the Biden motorcade. There were a mother and daughter near us carrying a flag and a Trump sign. They came by us as we were about to pull away. I rolled down my window and noted that I'd served that flag and was going to say more but she immediately thanked me for my service. I pointed out that Trump had not only not served but thought those who'd given their lives in service were suckers, losers and fools. I had to pull forward at that point so I didn't hear her explanation as to how she would reconcile those points I neither need nor want the gratitude of any Trump supporters. The offense they do me and every man and woman in uniform by supporting such an individual grossly overrides any expression of personal "thanks" for our service .

You are welcome to move on to the thread where people explain how any observed increases in temperature since the Industrial Revolution are harming humans or other life on Earth.

I gave you a response in your thread.

 

[Crick]

What led you to call that point the "glacial maximum"?

Ding?

I wonder if you didn't pick up a bad habit from EMH. Have you noticed that he calls any terrain covered with snow and ice "ice age" and frequently sort of makes up or redefines his own terminology? "Glacial" doesn't mean cold. It means "relating to, resulting from, or denoting the presence or agency of ice, especially in the form of glaciers.". And a glacier is "a slowly moving mass or river of ice formed by the accumulation and compaction of snow on mountains or near the poles.". And then, of course, you've used the word "maximum" as if we were talking about magnitudes or absolute values. Without some prior agreement, a temperature maximum would be the highest level reached, not the lowest. I think a better choice of words would simply be "lowest temperature" or "minimum temperature".

No charge!

 

[ding]

Ding?

I answered that in post #27. Seems to me you should have replied to that post and explained what you think I got wrong and why. That would be the honest way or reconciling differences. Because the way you did it was decidedly dishonest.

The glacial maximum refers to the time period when an ice sheet reach their maximum total mass during an ice age. It is also the coldest point. It is also the point where the warming of the ice age begins.

 

[Crick]

I answered that in post #27.

I'm terribly sorry. I had not seen post #27. You still made the mistakes I identified in #34 and my best guess as to what you meant was what you meant, but I really had a hard time believing you would choose that terminology.

Seems to me you should have replied to that post and explained what you think I got wrong and why.

I will do so now. As I said, I had not seen it. I'm sure that, as someone who sometimes does a lot of posting here, it is possible to miss a response.

That would be the honest way or reconciling differences. Because the way you did it was decidedly dishonest.

Really? What did I do that you believe to have been dishonest?

The glacial maximum refers to the time period when an ice sheet reach their maximum total mass during an ice age. It is also the coldest point. It is also the point where the warming of the ice age begins.

I guess the crucial point here is whether you believe that the warming we have experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has primarily been caused by a relief of the factors that caused the Little Ice Age and nothing else.

 

[ding]

I'm terribly sorry. I had not seen post #27. You still made the mistakes I identified in #34 and my best guess as to what you meant was what you meant, but I really had a hard time believing you would choose that terminology.

I've used it before. There was no mistake. You are tilting at windmills.

 

[ding]

Really? What did I do that you believe to have been dishonest?

1. You didn't reply to me
2. You didn't make it so an alert would be sent to me
3. You never addressed what I said

 

[Crick]

Glacial which means cold and maximum which means most, ergo the coldest point. So whatever you want to call that point it doesn't really matter because all that matters is the point at which it warmed from which is about 400 years ago.

I guess I'm being thrown off by the association you've made between the Little Ice Age and glaciation. There were expansions of several northern hemisphere glaciers during the LIA but I wouldn't personally characterize that as glaciation. And it certainly wasn't as global in nature as the warming we've undergone since 1850.

So, those are the mistake I believe you have made.

 

[ding]

I guess the crucial point here is whether you believe that the warming we have experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has primarily been caused by a relief of the factors that caused the Little Ice Age and nothing else.

Almost all warming since the last glacial maximum (i.e. not the little ice age) is due to the planet returning to it's pre-glacial temperature as the Arctic warms before it will reverse itself like it has been doing for past 3 million years.

The radiative forcing of an incremental 120 ppm has - at best - only contributed 0.5C of the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.