Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Jun 24, 2019 4:48 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Interesting talk on solar variability

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6321 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostMon Jun 24, 2019 4:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
It's simply amazing how many studies show the non real higher for longer temps....

Quote:
The record demonstrates a warming during the Roman Warm Period (~350 BCE – 450 CE), variable bottom water temperatures during the Dark Ages (~450 – 850 CE), positive bottom water temperature anomalies during the Viking Age/Medieval Climate Anomaly (~850 – 1350 CE) and a long-term cooling with distinct multidecadal variability during the Little Ice Age (~1350 – 1850 CE). The fjord BWT [bottom water temperatures] record also picks up the contemporary warming of the 20th century, which does not stand out in the 2500-year perspective and is of the same magnitude as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Anomaly

pdf


The one below is consistent with the 'debunked' Easterbrook findings, he must have bamboozled measurements and non 'skeptical science' researchers ....

Quote:
The Holocene climatic optimum was a period 8–5 kyr ago when annual mean surface temperatures in Greenland were 2–3°C warmer than present-day values...

pdf

Those darned Estonians...

Quote:
The Holocene coldest temperatures were observed during the Early Holocene, but temperature followed a gradual rise (from ca. 11.7 to 8 kyr cal. BP) to reach its maximal value during the Holocene Thermal Maximum (from ca. 8 to 4.5 kyr cal. BP). Holocene Thermal Maximum was characterized by summer air temperatures about 2.5 °C degrees higher than present.


Hotter for longer long before anything we're told will doom us, unless we give the doomsayers untold power and money because panic. Remember, some of them openly advocate for and *want* people to panic, panic reduces and impedes proper judgment.

There are a lot more references to hotter for longer already in this interglacial, prior to the church of climate sanctity's encyclicals condemning  'overconsumption' (always someone else's) and air travel (someone else's also, it's amazing how it's always someone else that needs to be restricted).

I took a few minutes to find some more, listed above, and didn't even do more than skim the many references.

Our woodland and oceanic friends we're concerned about *already* survived worse than we're told will kill us, and so did our horse and buggy, at best, predecessors. The idea our adaptability is *worse* now, is a joke...unless we let the 'planners' plan, in which case it won't be.

The fact that it was hotter for longer already fundamentally undermines most if not all of the doomsayer narrative, and this is why evading the reality is so important for the narrative.

That theory is debunked here:

https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Jun 24, 2019 6:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yes, you already claimed that. Yet I've presented study after study showing the 'warmer for longer already' results in numerous locations, including greenland in a separate study.

In order for science to be science, it has to be falsifiable. And in order for it to be falsifiable, it *also* has to include the honesty for ones deeply held beliefs to be subjected to test, and changed, when shown to be false.

Not accepting same, and going for repetition in it's place as a substitute is how nonscience takes root and maintains it's hold. You can post that link forever more, and it won't undo the findings of the other work I presented.

You didn't even address the existence of all the work I linked. I don't wonder why.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6321 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostMon Jun 24, 2019 10:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Yes, you already claimed that. Yet I've presented study after study showing the 'warmer for longer already' results in numerous locations, including greenland in a separate study.

In order for science to be science, it has to be falsifiable. And in order for it to be falsifiable, it *also* has to include the honesty for ones deeply held beliefs to be subjected to test, and changed, when shown to be false.

Not accepting same, and going for repetition in it's place as a substitute is how nonscience takes root and maintains it's hold. You can post that link forever more, and it won't undo the findings of the other work I presented.

You didn't even address the existence of all the work I linked. I don't wonder why.

Now it seems that you are in the style of the Monty Python argument sketch engaging in mere contradiction "no it isn't"

You still haven't presenting anything that has already been debunked.

e.g. you mentioned the "Roman Warm Period", that is debunked here:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=249&&a=4

Including this fun graph:

Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5126 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostTue Jun 25, 2019 7:27 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Yes, you already claimed that. Yet I've presented study after study showing the 'warmer for longer already' results in numerous locations, including greenland in a separate study.

In order for science to be science, it has to be falsifiable. And in order for it to be falsifiable, it *also* has to include the honesty for ones deeply held beliefs to be subjected to test, and changed, when shown to be false.

Not accepting same, and going for repetition in it's place as a substitute is how nonscience takes root and maintains it's hold. You can post that link forever more, and it won't undo the findings of the other work I presented.

You didn't even address the existence of all the work I linked. I don't wonder why.

That is pretty laughable. Go back and reclaim pathetic debunked "studies" pretending as if you don't know any better....

Editorials are not studies; studies have to do with science.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Jun 25, 2019 7:51 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Now it seems that you are in the style of the Monty Python argument sketch engaging in mere contradiction "no it isn't"

You still haven't presenting anything that has already been debunked.

e.g. you mentioned the "Roman Warm Period", that is debunked here:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=249&&a=4

Including this fun graph:


Anything can seem like anything if you are so inclined to claim to believe so.

I'm not sure how evidence from multiple sources showing the Greenland warming earlier in the current interglacial is mere 'no it isn't', when it is backed by work from multiple sources, none done by Easterbrook.

I didn't mention the Roman warm period, the authors of one of the papers did. I'll check out the 'debunking' you mention, but suspect I'll find the same thing we saw from the earlier 'debunking', a fake falsification in which the claim the work is wrong is contradicted by other's work in numerous cases.

As for the conclusion, putting up the hockey stick long known to be problematic at best, isn't helping your argument. Especially when the big scare at the end consists of temp increases which are a small fraction of temps previously occurring in this interglacial. Why, we're almost 20% of the way to some of the proxy temp highs that didn't wipe out the critters or stone age humans! Fear!

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Jun 25, 2019 7:55 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
That is pretty laughable. Go back and reclaim pathetic debunked "studies" pretending as if you don't know any better....

Editorials are not studies; studies have to do with science.

Please present the 'debunking' of the *other* work I noted. This shouldn't be difficult, since in order to make a valid, honest claim it has been debunked, you should already be in possession of that information.

The churn presented as if it counts as actual logic is what is laughable.  This doesn't help your case.

"Social" methods of argument akin to playground antics do not count as logic, or science.

“When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.”


And needing to use tactics like spray, 'social' attacks, and other fluff is pounding the table. There is not one science where these methods are considered valid...except warmism. I wonder what that says about the 'science'. Actually, no I don't.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostTue Jun 25, 2019 8:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Keeping in mind the simplistic example that a flying bird falsifies gravity, there has been some debate as to what exact physical evidence would falsify AGW. But while a flying bird doesn't falsify gravity, explaining lift is not necessarily trivial. Similarly, explaining why in some historical cases warming has preceded CO2 increases to deniers doesn't falsify AGW seems probably harder than it would be to explain lift to Newton.

The problem probably comes down to trying to find one or a few gotcha cases that miraculously make the case in the vast field of study of the complex phenomenon that is our planet's climate. There are numerous cases of individual data points that appear to be contrary to "global warming" because that phrase, while in aggregate true, does not really describe what is happening on a smaller scale in billions of places at any given time. Thus the wealth of flying birds that can be pointed to as falsification.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5126 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostWed Jun 26, 2019 6:09 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
gb wrote:
That is pretty laughable. Go back and reclaim pathetic debunked "studies" pretending as if you don't know any better....

Editorials are not studies; studies have to do with science.

Please present the 'debunking' of the *other* work I noted. This shouldn't be difficult, since in order to make a valid, honest claim it has been debunked, you should already be in possession of that information.

Bingo: https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jun 26, 2019 12:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
A 'debunking' that doesn't even rise to the level of the falsification of any of the works I presented is itself a bunk counter argument. Nothing there critiques any of the work presented.

The fact that you rely on the same repetition as our other poster rather than openly dealing head on with the questions asked is yet another example of evasion.

So far, only one of my initial arguments of fact has even been tackled and neither of you addresses directly all the work contradicting both your debunking source and the argumemt that it wasnt hotter for longer already.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jun 26, 2019 12:48 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
Yes, you already claimed that. Yet I've presented study after study showing the 'warmer for longer already' results in numerous locations, including greenland in a separate study.

In order for science to be science, it has to be falsifiable. And in order for it to be falsifiable, it *also* has to include the honesty for ones deeply held beliefs to be subjected to test, and changed, when shown to be false.

Not accepting same, and going for repetition in it's place as a substitute is how nonscience takes root and maintains it's hold. You can post that link forever more, and it won't undo the findings of the other work I presented.

You didn't even address the existence of all the work I linked. I don't wonder why.

That is pretty laughable. Go back and reclaim pathetic debunked "studies" pretending as if you don't know any better....

Editorials are not studies; studies have to do with science.

They're not editorials, they're reviewed papers just like the ones were told we must trust because peer review, with one difference

They don't support your argument

I'll ask again. Please present the work showing these sources to be wrong, work you must possess in order to honestly claim you know they are wrong.

A claimed debunking of another study does not qualify, yet that is what you're attempting to pass off here.

The evasions never end and yet you never question why you need evasions. Or repetition of non applicable arguments (source does not address the sources provided).

Or the need to use any of these tactics on a continual basis.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15683 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostWed Jun 26, 2019 2:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
So what's your point?  What is it that isn't debunked?  Ideally in less than 1 paragraph.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5126 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostWed Jun 26, 2019 5:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
that doesn't even rise to the level of the falsification of any of the works I presented

I agree wholeheartedly, you have falsified all sorts of editorial reports

Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5126 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostWed Jun 26, 2019 5:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Himalayan glacial loss doubles in rate since 2000
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jun 27, 2019 12:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
So what's your point?  What is it that isn't debunked?  Ideally in less than 1 paragraph.

If it fits in one paragraph, fine, if it doesn't, then it won't and I don't... because complex ideas have complex details. If that doesn't suit someone's ends, fine, but they shouldn't be claiming to have valid judgment of complex ideas. The citations not addressed do not fit in a paragraph.

The Easterbook study is claimed to have been falsified, via a 'debunking' (political terminology). So, fine....falsifying the details of one claim does not falsify another with different data, methods, or arguments.

What was not falsified is easy. NONE of the other works I presented (aside from Easterbrook) have been addressed. Especially the one which also uses Greenland data.

Yet it is directly implied that debunking Easterbrook counts as falsification of anything else I presented.

The list of papers not addressed:
China early holocene temps much warmer than present...
*****************************
Iceland proxy studies show higher temps earlier
*******************************
Temps consistent with higher premodern temps in Australia as well. PDF
There are abundant studies and refererences concerning the higher temperatures previous in the era.
****************************************

Quote:
The record demonstrates a warming during the Roman Warm Period (~350 BCE – 450 CE), variable bottom water temperatures during the Dark Ages (~450 – 850 CE), positive bottom water temperature anomalies during the Viking Age/Medieval Climate Anomaly (~850 – 1350 CE) and a long-term cooling with distinct multidecadal variability during the Little Ice Age (~1350 – 1850 CE).

pdf
************************************

Non Easterbrook study which tends to agree with Easterbrook

Quote:
The Holocene climatic optimum was a period 8–5 kyr ago when annual mean surface temperatures in Greenland were 2–3°C warmer than present-day values...

pdf
**********************************

from Estonia
Those darned Estonians...

The methods used here for catastrophic warming arguments are sloppy because the backing for them is political, social, and emotional..and thus sloppy by standards which follow proper method.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday cascadianwarrior!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy