• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holocene Poses Difficulty for AGW Concept

Lord of Planar said:
I don't see where it says it is the current temp.
Click to expand...
What do you think "Current global warming" and "present temperature" means when it's a label on a temperature graph?

Lord of Planar said:
What am I missing, or are you once again, assuming with your confirmation bias?
Click to expand...
Apparently you are completely missing the fact that Tim Ball's whole rant about the last 120 years of 'global' temperatures was based on a fakely labeled graph based on a dataset that ended in 1855 and didn't even include the last 161 years, and was only from the Greenland Icesheet.
Lord of Planar said:
The source of that graph acknowledges the 1855. Skeptical Science shows the graphed data also:
Click to expand...
But that's not the graph that Tim Ball used was it? Skeptical Science posted an expose of that deliberately mislabeled graph which was originally created by Don Easterbrook who also used it to deceive.

Tim Ball didn't acknowledge the data ended in 1855 at all. His label said "Current Global Warming" and "Present temperature"


Lord of Planar said:
With this graph, and being said we are one degree warmer since ~1850, the argument stands that we were warmer in past times.
Click to expand...
You're either as gullible and non-sceptical as any climate truther on WUWT or completely dishonest. Did you not understand that the graph was from one location at the top of the Greenland Ice-sheet? Not 'global'?


Lord of Planar said:
There is more, but I hate spending too much time doing other people's homework.
Click to expand...
Even with looking up other versions of that deceptive graph, you still refuse to acknowledge Tim Balls and WUWT deliberate deception - as expected with someone with such an extreme confirmation bias as you have shown.

As predicted, you are falling over yourself desperately trying to ignore, deflect and defend the deliberate deception by Tim Ball and WUWT.
What's Up With That?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but that's a willful misreading.
Click to expand...

B-ollocks Jack. The lengths you will go to willfully ignore science and believe any old pseudoscience craptrap based on such obvious lies as those presented by Tim Ball on WUWT, are almost beyond belief.
 
Quaestio said:
B-ollocks Jack. The lengths you will go to willfully ignore science and believe any old pseudoscience craptrap based on such obvious lies as those presented by Tim Ball on WUWT, are almost beyond belief.
Click to expand...

Suit yourself. I think you're engaged in willful misreading.
 
Jack Hays said:
Suit yourself. I think you're engaged in willful misreading.
Click to expand...

*shrug* You believe anything you want to believe, no matter what the evidence shows.
 
Quaestio said:
You're welcome. However the fact that you praised a blog post by Tim Ball which was full of very obvious errors without bothering to fact check it first, should make you reflect on your own strong ideological bias against mainstream science. Do you believe you know enough to be able to 'look at the data' with any expertise or knowledge of all the research?
Click to expand...

Judging by your answer, you do not read, what people write.
 
joG said:
Judging by your answer, you do not read, what people write.
Click to expand...
Judging by your answer you still haven't fact checked Tim Ball's blog article. Do you still want to stand by your claim that it was an 'excellent' 'well-argued' article? Now that the graph he based his whole rant on has been shown to have fake labels that deliberately hid the fact that the dataset ended in 1855? ;)
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but that's a willful misreading.
Click to expand...

That's how I see it.

I don't see where the article claimed the 1855 part of the chart claims modern day, and nobody has quoted the paragraph we apparently missed.
 
Quaestio said:
What do you think "Current global warming" and "present temperature" means when it's a label on a temperature graph?
Click to expand...
You still didn't quote the offending paragraph. What I recall it saying without going over it for the umpteen millionth time, is that is says present day increases are less than past higher temperatures.

Please, by all means, quote where it is lying, rather then allowing one's own mind to fill in the blanks.

Quaestio said:
Apparently you are completely missing the fact that Tim Ball's whole rant about the last 120 years of 'global' temperatures was based on a fakely labeled graph based on a dataset that ended in 1855 and didn't even include the last 161 years, and was only from the Greenland Icesheet.
But that's not the graph that Tim Ball used was it? Skeptical Science posted an expose of that deliberately mislabeled graph which was originally created by Don Easterbrook who also used it to deceive.

Tim Ball didn't acknowledge the data ended in 1855 at all. His label said "Current Global Warming" and "Present temperature"
Click to expand...
What's wrong with him doing what almost all other climate papers do?

Quaestio said:
You're either as gullible and non-sceptical as any climate truther on WUWT or completely dishonest. Did you not understand that the graph was from one location at the top of the Greenland Ice-sheet? Not 'global'?
Click to expand...
No, you are the gullible one, for only seeing it in material you disagree with, when papers yopu agree with use the same trickery.

Quaestio said:
Even with looking up other versions of that deceptive graph, you still refuse to acknowledge Tim Balls and WUWT deliberate deception - as expected with someone with such an extreme confirmation bias as you have shown.

As predicted, you are falling over yourself desperately trying to ignore, deflect and defend the deliberate deception by Tim Ball and WUWT.
What's Up With That?
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I see it for what it is.
 
Quaestio said:
Judging by your answer you still haven't fact checked Tim Ball's blog article. Do you still want to stand by your claim that it was an 'excellent' 'well-argued' article? Now that the graph he based his whole rant on has been shown to have fake labels that deliberately hid the fact that the dataset ended in 1855? ;)
Click to expand...

Take your confirmation bias out and read it again.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What evidence?

You haven't presented anything unusual yet.
Click to expand...

Well, there is this....

ad99c9098dfe47d24fbfa134a00f6351.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, there is this....

ad99c9098dfe47d24fbfa134a00f6351.jpg
Click to expand...

"The present warming as revealed by the Greenland ice cores is almost non measurable."

It wouldn't be a misinterpretation to say: "Present warming is less than the highs revealed by the ice cores." Only a few years of what is considered "present warming" is part of the ice core sample, so it isn't a lie to say it's "almost non measurable." They don't say the core is complete to modern day. I agree it is implied, but this is the same type deception used in nearly all climate papers. Why are you guys so hypocritical and not seeing that in other papers?

OK, scientists now like to use approximately 1850 to present, for "present warming." The graph does say "BP" which is 1950. The red arrows are the cooling after the warming, and the first arrow is at about 1500. Remember, these are just the Greenland records. Just how it affected that region. Besides, after the short warming, it cooled again until about 200 BP. It shows a greater than 2C change over the course of the graph.

I see no lies in the graph, and the misdirection is common in most climate papers.

now if you have noticed, I from time to time do point out misleading material from the skeptical side. This indeed is one of the misleading pieces of material.

Tit for tat. I think it makes the skeptical side look bad, but I think they are simply resorting to the same tactics that climatologists use to get published.

I suggest you complain about your side's tactics, else be a hypocrite for fact.

So... Can you show me an outright lie, or just this ambiguous use of writing tactics?
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
"The present warming as revealed by the Greenland ice cores is almost non measurable."

It wouldn't be a misinterpretation to say: "Present warming is less than the highs revealed by the ice cores." Only a few years of what is considered "present warming" is part of the ice core sample, so it isn't a lie to say it's "almost non measurable." They don't say the core is complete to modern day. I agree it is implied, but this is the same type deception used in nearly all climate papers. Why are you guys so hypocritical and not seeing that in other papers?

OK, scientists now like to use approximately 1850 to present, for "present warming." The graph does say "BP" which is 1950. The red arrows are the cooling after the warming, and the first arrow is at about 1500. Remember, these are just the Greenland records. Just how it affected that region. Besides, after the short warming, it cooled again until about 200 BP. It shows a greater than 2C change over the course of the graph.

I see no lies in the graph, and the misdirection is common in most climate papers.
Click to expand...

Maybe I need to repost?

efbb1b2296a8d53627f67b66d740c89f.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe I need to repost?

efbb1b2296a8d53627f67b66d740c89f.jpg
Click to expand...

No, maybe you need to comprehend better, or explain why my explanation is insufficient. But then, I guess you are incapable of that level of thinking.

Just repeating the same graph, and expecting different results... Don't some people see that as insanity?

You are following a famous quote:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”
 
Lord of Planar said:
No, maybe you need to comprehend better, or explain why my explanation is insufficient. But then, I guess you are incapable of that level of thinking.

Just repeating the same graph, and expecting different results... Don't some people see that as insanity?

You are following a famous quote:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”
Click to expand...

I guess the LIA and MWP were just in different times in Greenland.

I'll have to remind the deniers of that fact when they insist that Greenland is the clear marker for the MWP.

I do love your explanation that this is the same kind of stuff in published papers... It makes it ever clearer that you make little distinction between bat**** crazy WUWT posts and articles published in Nature Climate Change.
 
Threegoofs said:
I do love your explanation that this is the same kind of stuff in published papers... It makes it ever clearer that you make little distinction between bat**** crazy WUWT posts and articles published in Nature Climate Change.
Click to expand...

I have been consistent at saying the papers use weasel words, and other misleading statements without lying.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have been consistent at saying the papers use weasel words, and other misleading statements without lying.
Click to expand...
Who cares what you have been 'consistent at saying'? If you can't even admit that what Tim Ball did was outright deliberate deception, and you fall over yourself trying to defend and deflect from what he did, your confirmation biased opinions aren't worth anything.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, there is this....

ad99c9098dfe47d24fbfa134a00f6351.jpg
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are refering to me there... presumably not...

The most recent peak on the graph is at about 9-1000 AD so that would be in line with the Medeval warm period and the one labeled little ice age would be about right for the fall of the Western Roman Empire, another cold period.

I think whoever labeled the graph has their arrows in the wrong place rather than the graph it's self being wrong.
 
Nature Unbound I: The Glacial Cycle

Posted on October 24, 2016 | 61 comments
by Javier
Insights into the debate on whether the Holocene will be long or short.
Continue reading →

Conclusions
1) Obliquity is the main factor driving the glacial-interglacial cycle. Precession, eccentricity and 65°N summer insolation play a secondary role. There is no 100 kyr cycle. Milankovitch Theory is incorrect.
2) The current pacing of interglacial periods is the consequence of the Earth being in a very cold state that prevents almost half of obliquity cycles from successfully emerging from glacial conditions. The rate for the past million years has been 72.7 kyr/interglacial, or 1.8 obliquity cycles between interglacials. This can be generally described as one interglacial every two obliquity cycles except when close to the 413 kyr eccentricity peaks, when interglacials take place at every obliquity cycle.
3) Glacial terminations require, in addition to rising obliquity, the existence of very strong feedback factors manifested as very low glacial maximum temperatures. High northern summer insolation at the second half of the rising obliquity period is a positive factor, and if high enough during eccentricity peaks can drive the termination process.
4) CO2 can only produce a minor effect in glacial terminations since the measured change in concentration (roughly a third of a doubling which represents half of the warming effect of a doubling) is too small to account for any important contribution to the large observed temperature changes.
5) Since the precession cycle has bottomed and the obliquity cycle is half way down we should expect the next glacial inception to take place within the next two millennia.
Acknowledgements. I thank Andy May for reading the manuscript and improving its English, and Euan Mearns for providing a figure from a publication in press that was the basis for figure 5.
Bibliography. Link to [references].





 
Jack Hays said:
Nature Unbound I: The Glacial Cycle

[FONT=&]Posted on October 24, 2016 | 61 comments[/FONT]
by Javier
Insights into the debate on whether the Holocene will be long or short.
Continue reading →

Conclusions
1) Obliquity is the main factor driving the glacial-interglacial cycle. Precession, eccentricity and 65°N summer insolation play a secondary role. There is no 100 kyr cycle. Milankovitch Theory is incorrect.
2) The current pacing of interglacial periods is the consequence of the Earth being in a very cold state that prevents almost half of obliquity cycles from successfully emerging from glacial conditions. The rate for the past million years has been 72.7 kyr/interglacial, or 1.8 obliquity cycles between interglacials. This can be generally described as one interglacial every two obliquity cycles except when close to the 413 kyr eccentricity peaks, when interglacials take place at every obliquity cycle.
3) Glacial terminations require, in addition to rising obliquity, the existence of very strong feedback factors manifested as very low glacial maximum temperatures. High northern summer insolation at the second half of the rising obliquity period is a positive factor, and if high enough during eccentricity peaks can drive the termination process.
4) CO2 can only produce a minor effect in glacial terminations since the measured change in concentration (roughly a third of a doubling which represents half of the warming effect of a doubling) is too small to account for any important contribution to the large observed temperature changes.
5) Since the precession cycle has bottomed and the obliquity cycle is half way down we should expect the next glacial inception to take place within the next two millennia.
Acknowledgements. I thank Andy May for reading the manuscript and improving its English, and Euan Mearns for providing a figure from a publication in press that was the basis for figure 5.
Bibliography. Link to [references].
Click to expand...

If that were to happen do you think that we could avoid it by putting dark soot material on the ice sheets? Or at least the advancing edges of them?
 
[h=1]Sun quiet again as colder than normal winter approaches[/h]The sun has been completely spotless on 21 days in 2016 and it is currently featuring just one lonely sunspot region. In fact, on June 4th of this year, the sun went completely spotless for the first time since 2011 and that quiet spell lasted for about four days. Sunspot regions then reappeared for the…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Sun quiet again as colder than normal winter approaches[/h]The sun has been completely spotless on 21 days in 2016 and it is currently featuring just one lonely sunspot region. In fact, on June 4th of this year, the sun went completely spotless for the first time since 2011 and that quiet spell lasted for about four days. Sunspot regions then reappeared for the…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

It's really hard to say what will happen. That's why I have said things like "if the sun continues to get quieter."

Non of the warmers acknowledge just how profound solar changes are. The IPCC et. al. only focuses on direct changes. However, every earth energy system is affected by solar changes!

More solar energy, more greenhouse gas forcing. Less solar energy, less greenhouse gas forcing.

Same with plant growth, absolute humidity, etc.

If the sun only changes by a 0.2%, the whole earth energy balance changes by more than 1 W/m^2, even though the direct forcing is only less than half that.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's really hard to say what will happen. That's why I have said things like "if the sun continues to get quieter."

Non of the warmers acknowledge just how profound solar changes are. The IPCC et. al. only focuses on direct changes. However, every earth energy system is affected by solar changes!

More solar energy, more greenhouse gas forcing. Less solar energy, less greenhouse gas forcing.

Same with plant growth, absolute humidity, etc.

If the sun only changes by a 0.2%, the whole earth energy balance changes by more than 1 W/m^2, even though the direct forcing is only less than half that.
Click to expand...

Funny how several chapters in the IPCC are devoted to the issue of solar influence on climate, complete with quantification written by the experts in the field who actually collect and analyze the data for a living..... INCLUDING a chapter on indirect solar influences.


But some yahoo with two journal subscriptions knows that 'the warmists dont acknowledge solar'!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom