Follow the Money....

[dixon76710]

Actually yes as a matter of fact English is a second language for me - though completely irrelevent.
What you sourced was a delta, difference of from start to finish. What you have not indicated is the start nor end date of the holocene climactic optimum. Which you claim is already over. Seems English is also a second language for you.
Hence again I challenge you to present a valid source that states the holocene climactic optimum has ended and the very time in which it ended.

Evidently the meaning of the initials B.P. escapes you. Before Present. And Iv'e already provided the wikipedia site. Now you are free to offer ANYTHING that indicates otherwise, einstein. Your repeated proclimations upon topics you know little about are not much more than a humorous spectacle to amuse the rest of us.

 

[jfuh]

Evidently the meaning of the initials B.P. escapes you. Before Present. And Iv'e already provided the wikipedia site. Now you are free to offer ANYTHING that indicates otherwise, einstein. Your repeated proclimations upon topics you know little about are not much more than a humorous spectacle to amuse the rest of us.

Define present. Present as in this very moment? Or before 200 years ago? before 1000 years ago?
See there you go again, and you're only doing so because you realize that you're dead wrong and can't back up your own assertions which is why you result to further personal attacks not realizing it only undermines your own.
You're claim was that because it's no longer that climactic optimum thus the temperatures rise which is completely without any merit because it could also mean that temperatures are decreasing back to another ice age.
You wanted to bring in precedent and we only see temperatures climb sharply when we are coming out of an ice age not at the end of a climactic optimum. In those instances we see temps drop. But what we see now is the exact opposite. You're attempt to bring in past examples has failed you quite miserably. Past precedent shows the exact opposite of what you claim to be a "natural trend".

But as you have answered with a straight answer for the first time in the other thread that AGW is a reality and you don't deny it.
Then just what the hell are you arguing about?

 

[dixon76710]

Define present. Present as in this very moment? Or before 200 years ago? before 1000 years ago?

Wow! Are you really so patetically clueless that you dont know if the "present" means THE PRESENT or 1000 years ago? I doubt I could help you understand any better what is obvious to everyone except you.

See there you go again, and you're only doing so because you realize that you're dead wrong and can't back up your own assertions which is why you result to further personal attacks not realizing it only undermines your own.
You're claim was that because it's no longer that climactic optimum thus the temperatures rise which is completely without any merit because it could also mean that temperatures are decreasing back to another ice age.

uuuhh???? that one was a product of your own imagination and has nothing to do with me or my arguements.
Feel free to post a link to ANY SOURCE that says otherwise. Just the first three results from a google search on Holocene maximum all confirm my claims and directly contradict yours. The holocene maximum has passed. It occured 1000s of years ago

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P..

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office
The development of agriculture in Mesopotamia and in the Indus Valley of present-day Pakistan and India benefited from the increased moisture that characterized the area during the end of the period of higher temperature: the so-called "Holocene Maximum."

 

[Gill]

:lamo there you go again, gill. Making shat up as you go along.
It still has a blade and it still indicates that global temps are rising.
When have I ever denied that science is built around skepticism? Please go ahead I challenge you to find me where I've ever stated such. You're just spinning constantly here to find a standing.

Oh no, you've never denied AGW:roll: Only when brought up that your avatar organization accepted AGW and supported measures to curb AGW you went on to state that you don't always agree with that organizations position.
Only when met with statements that the current warming is anthropogenic in origin you continually deny it saying that there is no evidence for or go on beating that it's a natural phenomena and asserting that the "hockey stick graph has been debunked".
So now are you stating that you concede that AGW is a reality?

There you go again jfuhy, making up lies... I said the hockey stick was broken, you denied it. I proved you wrong. Another simple question for you... where is the MWP and the LIA on the so called hockey stick. Mann convienently left them off.

When have you denied skepticism is important to science??? Every time you laugh (with no basis) at anyone who is skeptical of AGW. Every time you accuse anyone skeptical of AGW as being in the pocket of oil. Pathetic attempt.

I've never denied AGW, I am skeptical of it. I don't buy all the arguements. When so called climate scientists are secretive of their means and data, that makes me VERY skeptical and I wonder what they are trying to hide. When the head of a government agency refuses (until pressure forces him) to divulge his methods of "adjusting" temperatures, that makes me very skeptical.

The discussions about Ducks Unlimited had nothing to do with their or my stance on AGW. It was limited to carbon trading only. Prove otherwise.

 

[Gill]

Define present.

:rofl Next you be saying that it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

You libs will do anything to get out of giving a straight answer !!!!!!!

I'll help you out since you admit you have trouble with English.

pres·ent Pronunciation[prez-uhnt] :
1. being, existing, or occurring at this time or now; current: the present ruler.
2. at this time; at hand; immediate: articles for present use.

 

[dixon76710]

There you go again jfuhy, making up lies... I said the hockey stick was broken, you denied it.

Put in the medievil warm period and the little ice age and it isnt even a hockey stick any longer.

 

[jfuh]

Wow! Are you really so patetically clueless that you dont know if the "present" means THE PRESENT or 1000 years ago? I doubt I could help you understand any better what is obvious to everyone except you.

Being then that I can only assume that you're present then means this very moment then you're answers are completely wrong and you still have not been able to provide as to when the climactic optimum ended. The holocene has not ended we're still in it. Nice try though.

uuuhh???? that one was a product of your own imagination and has nothing to do with me or my arguements.
Feel free to post a link to ANY SOURCE that says otherwise. Just the first three results from a google search on Holocene maximum all confirm my claims and directly contradict yours. The holocene maximum has passed. It occured 1000s of years ago

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P..

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office
The development of agriculture in Mesopotamia and in the Indus Valley of present-day Pakistan and India benefited from the increased moisture that characterized the area during the end of the period of higher temperature: the so-called "Holocene Maximum."

You can google anything you want to supporting any assertion you want to. The problem is that you've not posted anything new at all here. You've even gone to use a personal web site as a source. Seems you still don't understand what credibility is. You're still confused. When a maximum ends you don't increase in temps anymore, you decrease. Yet what we see instead is that the temps are INCREASING.

 

[jfuh]

Put in the medievil warm period and the little ice age and it isnt even a hockey stick any longer.

Still the same old lies over and over again by the same old people.

Wasn't your argument only two facts? That Antarctica has been gaining mass and it's been getting colder? Not only that but you don't deny AGW nor any of the premise of so just wtf are you arguing at all? State your argument. If not then you're clearly just trolling.

 

[dixon76710]

Being then that I can only assume that you're present then means this very moment then you're answers are completely wrong and you still have not been able to provide as to when the climactic optimum ended. The holocene has not ended we're still in it. Nice try though.

I said the Holocene maximum has ended. Not the "Holocene". Nice try.

You can google anything you want to supporting any assertion you want to.

Obviously you cant google anything to support your assertion that the Holocene maximum has not ended and you certainly cant do it by taking the first four search results because they all support my assertion and contradict yours.

The problem is that you've not posted anything new at all here. You've even gone to use a personal web site as a source.

Yes, its common knowledge to most all, except you who seem to be in some kind of a state of denial.

Seems you still don't understand what credibility is. You're still confused. When a maximum ends you don't increase in temps anymore, you decrease. Yet what we see instead is that the temps are INCREASING.

ALL temperature reconstructions state otherwise, but feel free to present one that supports your silly assertions.

 

[dixon76710]

Still the same old lies over and over again by the same old people.

Wasn't your argument only two facts? That Antarctica has been gaining mass and it's been getting colder? Not only that but you don't deny AGW nor any of the premise of so just wtf are you arguing at all? State your argument. If not then you're clearly just trolling.

And Ive added a new fact. The so called hockey stick is missing two big kinks called the medievil warm period and the little ice age. And the medievil warm period and the little ice age, like the holocene maximum, are all climatic events in the past, not the present. And when I say present, I dont mean 1000 years ago, I mean NOW.

 

[jfuh]

I said the Holocene maximum has ended. Not the "Holocene". Nice try.

Considering that my initial statement was with the holocene you've been changing topics. But as you must, since you are stating that the MAXIMUM has ended please explain how we are surpassing that very "maximum" now?

Obviously you cant google anything to support your assertion that the Holocene maximum has not ended and you certainly cant do it by taking the first four search results because they all support my assertion and contradict yours.

:lamo

Yes, its common knowledge to most all, except you who seem to be in some kind of a state of denial.

Lol, again, when did it end dixon? What are we in now? Some natural rising temperature state? Lol. You're trolling is so transparent.

ALL temperature reconstructions state otherwise, but feel free to present one that supports your silly assertions.

Really? Please do show these reconstructions showing temperature increment after the maximum.

 

[jfuh]

And Ive added a new fact. The so called hockey stick is missing two big kinks called the medievil warm period and the little ice age. And the medievil warm period and the little ice age, like the holocene maximum, are all climatic events in the past, not the present. And when I say present, I dont mean 1000 years ago, I mean NOW.

Now as in since 1000 years ago? Since 100 years ago? Or the immediate now?
If you are referring to Mann's chart yes it has discrepancies but it is not fundamentally wrong. So still you like gill have no argument.
You can't make a full argument with a conclusion of any of your statements so you continually state these bits and pieces so as to not be stated as flat out wrong.
This is a debate site so post your argument.

 

[dixon76710]

Considering that my initial statement was with the holocene you've been changing topics.

You can simply search this thread for Holocene and claerly see that it was I who introduced the topic into the thread when I posted two days ago

And Nooooo the Holocene maximum was not that peak but instead merely one of many bumps and dips in an overall upward trend following all of the earths ice ages.

and you responded

We're already in the Holocene so there is no more rise,

and I corrected you

The "Holocene maximum", Holocene Climate Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, whatever you want to call it. Occured 5-9000 years ago. It is over.

and since the ole short term memory is shot, yesterday you went right back into

That's interesting note how even in your own source we do not see a single line that states that the holocene is already over.

Aaaand I again corrected

And for about the third time now, it is not the "holocene" that is over but the holocene maximum.

and now today, right back into the stuck on stupid mode

The holocene has not ended we're still in it. Nice try though.

Aaand I again corrected

I said the Holocene maximum has ended. Not the "Holocene". Nice try.

No jfuh, it is you who so desparately try, over and over and over to change the topic.

 

[jfuh]

You can simply search this thread for Holocene and claerly see that it was I who introduced the topic into the thread when I posted two days ago



and you responded



and I corrected you



and since the ole short term memory is shot, yesterday you went right back into



Aaaand I again corrected



and now today, right back into the stuck on stupid mode



Aaand I again corrected



No jfuh, it is you who so desparately try, over and over and over to change the topic.

Keep on trolling. You're simply copying over holocene from "a question for those who don't believe in global warming" thread where it was already pointed out to you that we were already in the holocene and not in any natural warming trend. You continually bring up the holocene maximum. Well what is that maximum dixon? How is it that we have now surpassed that "MAXIMUM" now? You claim that at present we're no longer in it - no shat sherlock. you can play the game all day long and all night long if you want you haven't proved anything at all other than you're a troll.
State your argument and again, unless you are stating that the maximum was warmer than it is today or that today's warming is a natural event then you've no argument whatsoever other than being a troll about the issue just to get an "I'm right" high when no one has disagreed nor argued that there was no climactic optimum before.
Again, we're in the holocene right now. Learn how to separate the difference. I'm not arguing by even the least bit that there was a climactic optimum/holocene maximum before I'm stating that the current warming is anthropogenic and we see it's warming far faster in a far shorter time frame then anything before. Even more proof is that it all coincidentally started with the industrial revolution.

Since you agree that the current warming is indeed anthropogenic and agree that AGW is indeed a reality then just what the hell are you doing if not just dicking around and being a troll?

 

[dixon76710]

Keep on trolling. You're simply copying over holocene from "a question for those who don't believe in global warming" thread where it was already pointed out to you that we were already in the holocene and not in any natural warming trend. You continually bring up the holocene maximum. Well what is that maximum dixon? How is it that we have now surpassed that "MAXIMUM" now?

LOLOL!!! Its a different topic in a different thread. Nobody is trying to change topics other than YOU.
And most science puts us a degree under the holocene maximum. And when we do surpass it, we will have a new holocene maximun, einstein.

 

[dixon76710]

Since you agree that the current warming is indeed anthropogenic

Now your just attributing your own beliefs onto me. I havent seen any evidence that shows that the majority of the warming we are now experiencing is due to man made causes.

 

[Gill]

I'm not arguing by even the least bit that there was a climactic optimum/holocene maximum before I'm stating that the current warming is anthropogenic and we see it's warming far faster in a far shorter time frame then anything before. Even more proof is that it all coincidentally started with the industrial revolution.

Another lie on your part as I showed you two pages back....

Of course the climate has changed abruptly in the past. Here's one example, the Younger-Dryas:

Quote:
The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900 – 11,500 years before present (BP) in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. The transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so.Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicates that the summit of Greenland was ~15 °C colder during the Younger Dryas than today. In the UK, coleopteran (fossil beetle) evidence suggests mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5 °C, and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas. Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since. The temperature rose almost as quickly when the Younger-Dryas ended, over a 40-50 year period.

You're good at ignoring posts that prove you wrong.

 

[jfuh]

LOLOL!!! Its a different topic in a different thread. Nobody is trying to change topics other than YOU.
And most science puts us a degree under the holocene maximum. And when we do surpass it, we will have a new holocene maximun, einstein.

Wrong - that's not what a holocene thermal maximum/climactic optimum is. You're juxtaposing natural phenomena with artificial. And if you looked at your own source which you've liked to multiple times now, your source contradicts your statement - AGAIN. We're above that maximum now. If you are going to state that we'd create another maximum - then you're assertion that it has ended is already wrong. A holocene can only have one Maximum.

 

[jfuh]

Now your just attributing your own beliefs onto me. I havent seen any evidence that shows that the majority of the warming we are now experiencing is due to man made causes.

That's funny coming from the same person that states he does not deny AGW; also the same person who in the premise stated he did not deny that the warming we see today is caused by unequilibrated greenhouse gases that were from anthropogenic sources.
Seems you are denying it right here. Still remember what you have stated before and answered with not denying?

1. Do you deny that there is a clear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration and climatic temperatures?
2. Do you deny that the world today is warming?
3. Do you deny that it is warming because of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
4. Do you deny that these greenhouse gases are of anthropogenic origin on top of natural equilibria?
5. Finally, With particular attention to what has been posted here with this sub topic of snow accumulation - Do you accept that the snow packs in Antarctica are consistent with AGW models as has been written in the published original literature?

WTF????? Uh, No, No, No, No and I suspect those who create the "models" could contend with most any isolated contradiction.

For the 4th time now, do you deny AGW?

Ive answered that question 4 times, no. Is there really any point in saying no a 5th time?

Now your just attributing your own beliefs onto me. I havent seen any evidence that shows that the majority of the warming we are now experiencing is due to man made causes.

:lamo now you're spinning with this bullshit of how you don't see any evidence that it's anthropogenic.

 

[jfuh]

Another lie on your part as I showed you two pages back....

You're good at ignoring posts that prove you wrong.

Something I've already showed to be completely irrelevant to discussion isolated non-global event.

 

[dixon76710]

Wrong - that's not what a holocene thermal maximum/climactic optimum is. You're juxtaposing natural phenomena with artificial. And if you looked at your own source which you've liked to multiple times now, your source contradicts your statement - AGAIN. We're above that maximum now. If you are going to state that we'd create another maximum - then you're assertion that it has ended is already wrong. A holocene can only have one Maximum.

LOLOLOLOL!!! Its like arguing with a third grader. My sources all confirm my statements. You simply cannot comprehend the sources. Feel free to copy and paste the portion you believe that contradicts, and I shall again educate you.....OR when you refer to my "statement" are you not refering to what I have stated, but instead what I omitted from my statement? That arguement is even more lame than the first time you made it. The Holocene is an epoch in time that continues to this day. The Holocene maximum was a period of higher temperatures in the past.

The hypsithermal was a period of warming in which the global climate became 0.5–2°C warmer than today. However, the warming was probably not uniform across the world. This period ended about 5,500 years ago, when the earliest human civilizations in Asia and Africa were flourishing. This period of warmth ended with the descent into the Neoglacial.
Holocene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cant help but notice you havent offered a shred of evidence to support this silly assertion that the Holocen maximum is not in the past, but in the present.

 

[dixon76710]

That's funny coming from the same person that states he does not deny AGW; also the same person who in the premise stated he did not deny that the warming we see today is caused by unequilibrated greenhouse gases that were from anthropogenic sources.
Seems you are denying it right here. Still remember what you have stated before and answered with not denying?

:lamo now you're spinning with this bullshit of how you don't see any evidence that it's anthropogenic.

Of course, any distinction, smaller than the broad side of a barn, completely escapes you. No surprise there.

 

[Gill]

Something I've already showed to be completely irrelevant to discussion isolated non-global event.

Are you seriously claiming that the Younger Dryas event was non-global??? Amazing !!! Why do you waste time arguing about known and accepted facts?

The Younger Dryas (YD) glacier readvance is now generally conceded by most scientists to have been global and essentially simultaneous, although some continue to dispute this. With the many new dates now available, a close look at YD moraines in widely separated parts of the world suggests that not only was the YD global, but may have been a double, rather single climatic oscillation.

Two well-dated, YD moraines were built by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet in the Fraser Lowland in the western US., Sumas III (10,980-10,250 14C yrs B.P.) and Sumas IV (~10,250-10,000 14C yrs B.P.). In the Wind River Range of the Rocky Mts., double, 14C-and 10Be-dated, alpine, YD moraines have been documented at Titcomb Basin (11 ka mean 10Be age on inner moraine) and at Temple Lake. Similar, but not yet well dated, double moraines occur elsewhere in the Rocky Mts. and in the Cascade Range of Washington.

A similar YD moraine pattern is also found in New Zealand at Arthur’s Pass, where double YD moraines have mean 10Be ages of 11.8 ka and 11.4 ka, and at Birch Hill (mean 10Be ages 12.1 ka and 11.0 ka). The age of YD moraines at Prospect Hill, NZ is 12.7 ka 10Be yrs.

At Julier Pass, Switzerland the mean 10Be age of the outer YD moraine is 11.75 ka and 10.47for the inner moraine. Even the classic YD moraines of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet are double.

The double nature of these YD readvances in widely separated regions on several continents in both hemispheres suggests a common, global, climatic cause.

GLOBAL, DOUBLE, YOUNGER DRYAS, GLACIAL FLUCTUATIONS IN ICE SHEETS AND ALPINE GLACIERS
EASTERBROOK, Don J., Geology, Western Washington Univ

LOLOLOLOL!!! Its like arguing with a third grader.

BINGO !!

 

[jfuh]

LOLOLOLOL!!! Its like arguing with a third grader. My sources all confirm my statements. You simply cannot comprehend the sources. Feel free to copy and paste the portion you believe that contradicts, and I shall again educate you.....OR when you refer to my "statement" are you not refering to what I have stated, but instead what I omitted from my statement? That arguement is even more lame than the first time you made it. The Holocene is an epoch in time that continues to this day. The Holocene maximum was a period of higher temperatures in the past.



Cant help but notice you havent offered a shred of evidence to support this silly assertion that the Holocen maximum is not in the past, but in the present.

WHere did I say that the maximum was today? You did remember?? Setting a new maximum?
Nevertheless third grader indeed. You've already completely lost the debate.

Originally Posted by jfuh

1. Do you deny that there is a clear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration and climatic temperatures?
2. Do you deny that the world today is warming?
3. Do you deny that it is warming because of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
4. Do you deny that these greenhouse gases are of anthropogenic origin on top of natural equilibria?
5. Finally, With particular attention to what has been posted here with this sub topic of snow accumulation - Do you accept that the snow packs in Antarctica are consistent with AGW models as has been written in the published original literature?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
WTF????? Uh, No, No, No, No and I suspect those who create the "models" could contend with most any isolated contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfuh
For the 4th time now, do you deny AGW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
Ive answered that question 4 times, no. Is there really any point in saying no a 5th time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
Now your just attributing your own beliefs onto me. I havent seen any evidence that shows that the majority of the warming we are now experiencing is due to man made causes.

 

[jfuh]

Are you seriously claiming that the Younger Dryas event was non-global??? Amazing !!! Why do you waste time arguing about known and accepted facts?


GLOBAL, DOUBLE, YOUNGER DRYAS, GLACIAL FLUCTUATIONS IN ICE SHEETS AND ALPINE GLACIERS
EASTERBROOK, Don J., Geology, Western Washington Univ

And what was it like at the equator? oh hell what was it like north and south of the "tropics"?

And let's just say for the sake of argument that you are right about the younger dryas event so what?