drummindiver Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 25 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said: Again, there is a difference between mostly stable and fully stable. The difference at 4000 was exceptional and indicated more than a little instability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) The difference between global Holocene optimum temperatures and global Little Ice age temperatures is only ~ half a degree C. That's pretty stable in comparison to 5 C temperature swings during the Pleistocene. Edited January 8, 2017 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 2 hours ago, drummindiver said: Again, and everyone knows this by now, correlation does not equate causation.That is the fact of that. Of course that's the case, however we have human produced CO2 increases, and now temperature increases. In the absence of another explanation, there's really just one conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said: The difference between global Holocene optimum temperatures and global Little Ice age temperatures is only ~ half a degree C. That's pretty stable in comparison to 5 C temperature swings during the Pleistocene. Again, your numbers are off. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/03009480701317421/full Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, drummindiver said: Again, your numbers are off. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/03009480701317421/full They are not off. I was referring to temperature as a global average. Not regional temperature changes such as in Scandinavia. It's well known that there is more temperature change in polar regions and less temperature change in equatorial regions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said: They are not off. I was referring to temperature as a global average. Not regional temperature changes such as in Scandinavia. It's well known that there is more temperature change in polar regions and less temperature change in equatorial regions. And you are also comparing apples to oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, drummindiver said: And you are also comparing apples to oranges. How? It's just claim after claim from you; none of which refutes anything I wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 14 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said: How? It's just claim after claim from you; none of which refutes anything I wrote. Take a look at your numbers. They are wrong. You are comparing two eras of vastly different lengths then claim astonishment that the numbers don't match up. I have replied to everything you've stated. You've yet to say anythin iteresting in this discourse except to Mr Hardner who is hardly a science fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, drummindiver said: Take a look at your numbers. They are wrong. If you think my numbers are wrong then likely you don't understand the difference between regional average temperature change and global average temperature change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Why am I hardly a science fan ? This fan is still waiting for you to provide the cites I asked for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said: If you think my numbers are wrong then likely you don't understand the difference between regional average temperature change and global average temperature change. 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: Why am I hardly a science fan ? This fan is still waiting for you to provide the cites I asked for. As stated, a perusal of any infornation media will show you a plethora of discussion. Wasn't the other cite asked for related to the topic you shut down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said: If you think my numbers are wrong then likely you don't understand the difference between regional average temperature change and global average temperature change. If you believe this ridiculousness why continue vonversation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 What is hard to understand? I claim that global average temperature change between the Holocene Optimum and the Little Ice age was about 0.5 C. You then give a link that shows parts of Scandinavia warming by 2 C, thinking it refutes my claim. I then point out that regional temperature changes are not the same thing as global temperature changes and that polar regions (which Scandinavia is part of) tend to warm more than equatorial regions. You then proceed to claim that you've demonstrated my numbers are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 40 minutes ago, drummindiver said: As stated, a perusal of any infornation media will show you a plethora of discussion. Wasn't the other cite asked for related to the topic you shut down? You made the claim, so it's on you to back it up. As for my 'science fan' status, I would never use media personalities or popular media stars (or the founder of Greenpeace) to back up a claim. I haven't demonstrated your numbers were wrong - I posted a graph showing temperature and CO2 levels, mostly to prompt you to respond which you haven't. Please just continue your conversation with -1=e.... He's got more time for this than I do. Once you have those cites, we'll continue - agreed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: You made the claim, so it's on you to back it up. As for my 'science fan' status, I would never use media personalities or popular media stars (or the founder of Greenpeace) to back up a claim. I haven't demonstrated your numbers were wrong - I posted a graph showing temperature and CO2 levels, mostly to prompt you to respond which you haven't. Please just continue your conversation with -1=e.... He's got more time for this than I do. Once you have those cites, we'll continue - agreed ? On Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Michael Hardner said: By comparison, Zeke Hausfather in Science Magazine, cited above by -1=e: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(magazine) Science was a general science magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was intended to "bridge the distance between science and citizen", aimed at a technically literate audience who may not work professionally in the sciences. The AAAS also publishes the famous science journalScience, the similar name leading to some confusion. Zeke Hausfather Zeke is an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with a strong interest in conservation and efficiency. He was previously the chief scientist at C3, an energy management and efficiency company. He also cofounded Efficiency 2.0, a behavior-based energy efficiency company. He received a bachelor’s degree from Grinnell College, a master’s degree in environmental science from Vrije Universiteit in the Netherlands, and another master’s degree in environmental management from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He has published papers in the fields of environmental economics, energy modeling, and climate science. https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=Chq-VAIAAAAJ&hl=en No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 No. Suzuki doesnt qualify. Hausfather does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) The Holocene as you well know is relatively new millenia. The Pleistocene is not. Plus if you redid the math it is over the 5C you stated. -you are correct. I should not have inserted northern values. Edited January 9, 2017 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: No. Suzuki doesnt qualify. Hausfather does. Guys you like good. Guys I like bad. Nice debating technique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 zNo matter how much proof to the contrary AGW will not go away because it's big business. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification-yet-another-wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 25 minutes ago, drummindiver said: Nice debating technique. No that's not right. Read my posts - it's media figures that make the debate "bad" (your term). Do you like David Suzuki ? Because he is also "bad". If you're new to this debating topic, then please look into how often the person you're quoting is cited in papers, as an indicator. In any case - once you have those two cites for me (that I have asked for multiple times) we can continue. Until then I follow your lively debate witih -1=e. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: No that's not right. Read my posts - it's media figures that make the debate "bad" (your term). Do you like David Suzuki ? Because he is also "bad". If you're new to this debating topic, then please look into how often the person you're quoting is cited in papers, as an indicator. In any case - once you have those two cites for me (that I have asked for multiple times) we can continue. Until then I follow your lively debate witih -1=e. Cheers. Both have been quoted quite often.Suzuki beig the media whore probaby more. I have already suggested how you yourself can confirm AGW is indeed being talked about more. As there is no hard facts to present I'm going to trust one of sciences axioms...observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 More and more are realizing it is prudent to at least be skeptical. https://steemit.com/science/@zhanmusi/scientists-declare-man-made-global-warming-climate-change-a-complete-fraud-hoax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 15 minutes ago, drummindiver said: Both have been quoted quite often.Suzuki beig the media whore probaby more. I have already suggested how you yourself can confirm AGW is indeed being talked about more. Agreed on Suzuki. When it comes to cites, that's not how it works. "Proof lies with the claimant". If you don't have a cite for me then OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Just now, Michael Hardner said: Agreed on Suzuki. When it comes to cites, that's not how it works. "Proof lies with the claimant". If you don't have a cite for me then OK. I cannot find reputeable data indicating either way the discussion trends of AGW. It is my personal observation more people are discusing the skeptical aspect of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Fair enough. The conversation continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.