• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Holocene Deniers

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
What an utter laugh. You must be finding oil beneath your car, for that is the only way one can find oil without telling someone where to drill. The only way to find oil is to drill for it. If no one tells someone where to drill, no wells are drilled.

You appear to have either very limited experience of looking at seismic data or you are making up your credentials.

It is perfectly possible to see accumulations of oil and gas on seismic data with minimal processing, I have done so on numerous occaisions, but then it is my job.

What were you a roughneck?
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
You have made a variety of claims that hurt your credibility. You claimed you had found billions of barrels of oil,

Have I ? Where?

when in fact you have merely ridden a seismic boat QCing the data which is given to people who tell people to drill. What you do is essential for the oil business, but it isn't finding oil. Lots of seismic is acquired where no wells are drilled. Baggins, inflating one's credentials is not a very good idea, especially in front of someone else who is in the business.

Whatever. You appear to have very limited experience of looking at marine seismic is all I can suggest. As far as I concerned finding oil entails looking at a piece of raw seismic and seeing the tell tail signs of hydrocarbons. You'd be suprised how often that happens. I have no idea where these signs are commercial or not and to be honest I don't care it's not my job. gas chimneys are very common although not commercial.

So if you are talking about discovering a commercial hydrocarbon deposit and drilling it and bringing to market I have never done that, if you are talking about finding hydro carbons I do that, as I stated, very frequently, at least monthly may be more.


Secondly, you claimed that interpretation is mostly computer modeling now. I do interpretation for a living and do it every day. I did it today--it consists of making maps and it isn't computer modeling. It is a time intensive work which consists of clicking the mouse on the seismic line displayed along a given horizon. After one does this for hundreds of thousands of linear miles of data, one then combines the data into a map which is gridded from the hand picked data. What you said, shows that you have never been inside a modern interpretation office.

Blimey you work in a very backward environment, it is a lot more computer automated in the UK now.

Do you still actually work or did you lose your job some years ago?


Thirdly, you said that our oil supplies will be greater in 10 years than they are now.

Yep



That shows that you don't pay attention to anything even in your industry.

On The contrary it shows I do

Only 2 barrels of oil are now discovered each year for every 10 we burn. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to realize that this can't last forever.

But even a mathematical simpleton like me knows we are not going to go past maximum production in 10 years.

The supply of oil to the market in 10 years will almost certainly be greater than today unless we are in a major economic depression.

I would suggest that you go look at www.theoildrum.com and consider the information there. If what you said about supplies being greater in the world in 10 years than they are now, why doesn't that apply to the UK where today they are producing about 55% of what they produced when I moved to the UK in 2000. for those who want to see why oil will not be more plentiful in the future, see http://www.ibiblio.org/tcrp/doc/art/discgap.jpg The black curve is production and it is much greater than discoveries. When the area beneath the production curve equals the area in the discovery columns, we are out of oil.

I see the problem you didn't understand my original statement.

My point is supplies of oil to market will be higher in 10 years than they are today.

If all of this are examples of how you deal with facts, I will triple check anything you say about global warming.

I will say very little about global warming because you obviously don't really know what you are talking about, and you don't care to know why.

How can I ever trust what you say when you have already claimed things that are not strictly speaking true.

I couldn't give a gnats chuff how you take what I say. I believe you are a mendacious blow hard, if that helps you make a decision

And I am the one who you said was the prevaracator.

I don't use long words like prevaracator, I couldn't even spell it.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The picture is there. Will you now kindly withdraw your 'liar' charge, or are you lacking in common courtesy?

This is rich!

Did I get an apology when I was accused of wasting electricity after I informed you that for the previous 3 months I'd generated more electricity back to the grid than I used?

Originally you stated:

By the way, Thaumaturgy, if you think global warming is such a threat then stop being a hypocrite. PCs take 15% of home power useage and are using 5% of world energy. Get off the web if you think the world needs to be saved and thereby save that energy. But of course, you won't because you really don't beleive what you spout, at least you don't believe it enough to do anything about it.
(I've highlighted the bit in red)

I obviously do care enough about it. I then informed you of what I had done (put in solar, generated net positive electricity back to the grid, xeriscaping my yard to save water, driving fuel efficient cars, bicycling where possible in town, etc.)

Did I get an apology?

No, this is what I was got:

And you can't do more, huh? The world is about to face a crisis and you can't do more.

So it makes me wonder what the word "hypocrite" means to you, Glenn, that you suddenly want "common courtesy".

^_^
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Thistlethorn

Defeated dad.
Aug 13, 2009
785
49
Steering Cabin
✟23,760.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I am sorry but REalclimate.org is a political organization. You claim that you want peer-reviewed journals used. They are not a peer reviewed journal. Please be consistent.

I guess you get to use whatever resource you want to use but you want me to use whatever resource you want me to use. Interesting double standard.

I use peer-reviewed data, you use peer-reviewed data. My data is just better than yours, as it has been through a trial by fire, and has been vindicated by the national academy of science.

What I linked is merely discussion which casts yet more doubts on your data.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
..

I obviously do care enough about it. I then informed you of what I had done (put in solar, generated net positive electricity back to the grid, xeriscaping my yard to save water, driving fuel efficient cars, bicycling where possible in town, etc.)

Commendable. You do a little to try to lessen your impact on the planet. If this is presented as a lame little attempt, it is fine. Some people present things of this nature more as a religion, and sacred cow. As if it actually really mattered half a darn.

In the big picture, India, for example is online now, producing little inexpensive cars. (they may not be as fuel efficient as a smart car, or hybrid, but they are small) Yet there is worry that millions of new cars are really going to hurt the air, and environment. Add to that millions soon online from other countries, getting more money now. Even if we added a billion or two more 'fuel efficient' cars, there is a problem.

Solar energy also takes a lot of energy to produce. I hear they have a limited lifespan as well. If one isn't in a sunny place, there are limited efficiency issues as well. Then there is the cost. What percentage of the world can afford smart cars and solar panels?? 4%? Whatever it is, you can't hold it up for a model, any more than I can hold up driving a rolls royce would save the planet.

Bikes? How about the tons of emissions from traffic jams caused by bikes? :) Maybe if you stayed off the main roads, it would be a plus. Also, in many cities, housing tends to be more expensive near the core, where one could commute by bike. Again, to have a real impact, we need a level playing field. Driving a bile around a rice patty would only do so much good.

Ever stay in a hotel? Many hotels run at nearly a 50% (pick your number in some areas, maybe 20%) empty rooms over the year. That's a lot of heat or AC energy down the toilet. How about the trucks running around delivering less tham essential goods? And ships? Lots of emissions there. I also hear some of these recycle operations actually are less than efficient, or in some cases, even energy neutral. (trucks to get to the curbside, plants, etc etc)

Long story short, man ain't gonna save himself, or the planet. On the contrary. Would it matter if 40 % of the folks in the pentagon, and kremlin biked to work, if they were fighting a war in the mid east, that used some nukes, destroyed refineries, and etc etc? No. For the most part, it is hypocrisy, and the latest fad religion.

That's my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
Commendable. You do a little to try to lessen your impact on the planet. If this is presented as a lame little attempt, it is fine. Some people present things of this nature more as a religion, and sacred cow. As if it actually really mattered half a darn.

In the big picture, India, for example is online now, producing little inexpensive cars. (they may not be as fuel efficient as a smart car, or hybrid, but they are small) Yet there is worry that millions of new cars are really going to hurt the air, and environment. Add to that millions soon online from other countries, getting more money now. Even if we added a billion or two more 'fuel efficient' cars, there is a problem.

Solar energy also takes a lot of energy to produce. I hear they have a limited lifespan as well. If one isn't in a sunny place, there are limited efficiency issues as well. Then there is the cost. What percentage of the world can afford smart cars and solar panels?? 4%? Whatever it is, you can't hold it up for a model, any more than I can hold up driving a rolls royce would save the planet.

Bikes? How about the tons of emissions from traffic jams caused by bikes? :) Maybe if you stayed off the main roads, it would be a plus. Also, in many cities, housing tends to be more expensive near the core, where one could commute by bike. Again, to have a real impact, we need a level playing field. Driving a bile around a rice patty would only do so much good.

Ever stay in a hotel? Many hotels run at nearly a 50% (pick your number in some areas, maybe 20%) empty rooms over the year. That's a lot of heat or AC energy down the toilet. How about the trucks running around delivering less tham essential goods? And ships? Lots of emissions there. I also hear some of these recycle operations actually are less than efficient, or in some cases, even energy neutral. (trucks to get to the curbside, plants, etc etc)

Long story short, man ain't gonna save himself, or the planet. On the contrary. Would it matter if 40 % of the folks in the pentagon, and kremlin biked to work, if they were fighting a war in the mid east, that used some nukes, destroyed refineries, and etc etc? No. For the most part, it is hypocrisy, and the latest fad religion.

That's my opinion.
I'm always encouraged when "god hatin' atheists" show more respect for humanity and god's creation than True Christians (TM) do. ^_^
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm always encouraged when "god hatin' atheists" show more respect for humanity and god's creation than True Christians (TM) do. ^_^

Actually what I find most ironic about Dad's complaint was that he was essentially giving me a hard time for actions that

1. Didn't affect him in the slightest (so it was spite for spite's sake?)
2. Were actions that indicate I am willing to take action in support of my convictions! I have to wonder if Dad ever got around to reading the Book of Acts in the Bible. Did he think the apostles were "lame"?

In reality the solar unit was a significant cost to my wife and I, we aren't rich and this put us into some significant debt which we have worked very hard to pay off at no small sacrifice to us. (I am going to be starting a second job in the evenings later this month.)

We live rather simply, but I will admit we are not perfect. We are not monks. We could do more, but I am really impressed on this thread alone we've got two folks poking at me for doing something.

I wish they'd tell me what they are doing that is better so I might emulate their virtue.

Oh well. I'm the evil atheist. What do I know of "virtue"?
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
75
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟24,283.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ok, I'll withdraw my "liar" statement, and instead call you ignorant. I'll just counter your whole argument with the famous "hockey stick", updated and affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences. I think I'll stick to the data climatologists are using, instead of your graph.
climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/mann1.jpg

I didn't have time this morning before work to look at your picture. I am impressed with your picture shopping. But your chart clearly doesn't include some of the colder estimates of temperature, as is seen in my picture. Thus, one must wonder how the editing was done for the compilation of your picture.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
75
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟24,283.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You appear to have either very limited experience of looking at seismic data or you are making up your credentials.

It is perfectly possible to see accumulations of oil and gas on seismic data with minimal processing, I have done so on numerous occaisions, but then it is my job.

What were you a roughneck?

Billion barrel baggins is back to once again inflate his credentials as he admitted a couple of his posts ago. Seeing them is not the same as finding them, What a hoot. Wait till I tell the guys at the office about this.

Since you clearly don't know diddly about interpretation, I will point you to my articles


Morton, Glenn; Schlirf, Paul; Chang, Mark; and Kriechbaum, Victor, "The History of Seismic in the Gulf of Mexico," Presented to and published by the American Association of Petroleum Landmen, Jan. 22, 2004, Woodlands, Texas.

I am amazed but I found my powerpoint online http://www.ocsadvisoryboard.org/files/workshops/2004/History%20of%20Seismic.ppt

Prieto, Corine, and Morton, Glenn, (2003), "New Insights from a 3D Earth Model: Deep Water Region of Gulf of Mexico," The Leading Edge, 22(2003):4, p. 356-360
http://www.igcworld.com/PDF/Leading_Edge_April_2003.pdf


Morton, G. R., Conway, Paul. and McHugo, Steve. (2002), "Reversing the Earth Filter: Thin-sand Detection Using Single Sensor Data," Petrol. Expl. Soc. of Great Britain's, PETEX 2002 Meeting Abstracts given in London, Dec. 10, 2002, CD from Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain, London.

Morton, G. R., Dobb, Angela., Conway, Paul. and McHugo, Steve. (2002), "Acquisition of High Frequency Seismic and its Implications for Reservoir Management of the Murchison field, U.K. North Sea--A Case Study," 72nd Ann. Internatl. Mtg., Soc. Exploration Geophysicists Expanded Abstracts. p. 548-551.
This article reports on the acquisition of extremely high frequency exploration seismic data with 90 hertz energy at 11,000 feet deep. For those who don't know, this is quite an accomplishement.


Hey Billion barrel Baggins, here is the link for the SEG citation for this article Here

Terry Knighton, Steve Western, Glenn Morton and Robert Fleming (1999), "Development of Alternative Interpretation Models and Discriminating between Them Using a Borehole Gravity Survey and a Walkaway Checkshot Survey," Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts with Authors' Biographies, 69th Annual Meeting, Oct 31-Nov 5, 1999, Vol.1, p. 228-231.
This paper received Honorable Mention in the category of Best Poster Paper Presented at the 1999 SEG Annual Meeting. This paper was re-presented by invitation at the 2003 Soc. Exploration Geophysicists Annual meeting in a workshop.

The link for this citation: Here






Billion barrel Baggins is once again caught flat footed and totally unknowledgeable about anything. Billion Barrel, you should stop before you embarass yourself further.

Now Billion Barrel Baggins, lets hear of your publications and how you found oil by riding a boat? I think you were saying that you collected the seismic data (a very useful thing) but then handed it off to others who actually did the mapping, found the oil and got the credit. Weren't you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Thistlethorn

Defeated dad.
Aug 13, 2009
785
49
Steering Cabin
✟23,760.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I didn't have time this morning before work to look at your picture. I am impressed with your picture shopping. But your chart clearly doesn't include some of the colder estimates of temperature, as is seen in my picture. Thus, one must wonder how the editing was done for the compilation of your picture.

The graph I presented is the most famous graph in Global Warming history. As such, I am fairly shocked that you haven't heard of it. It first rose to fame in 1998, as I recall, when Michael Mann and his team compiled temperature data from all over the world to replace the earlier compilation made by H.H. Lamb, using mainly data from within and around the UK. This later graph was dubbed the "Hockey Stick" due to it's conspicuous shape.

This graph does away with the Medieval Warm Period almost completely, and shows it for the local thing it was. There has been a lot of controversy over this graph, as denialists have tried their utmost to debunk it, without success. Finally, in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences - charged to rule on the graph-controversy in 2005 - released their report, with slight criticism of Mann's data compilation, but largely affirming the validity of his conclusions.

The following year, in 2007, the IPCC re-published the Mann graph, along with data from other teams, following their own methodologies, and again, the original conclusion was affirmed. In 2008, Mann and his team produced a new graph (the one I showed you), incorporating the suggestions from the National Academy of Sciences panel, stretching the graph back an additional 700 years.

The National Academy of Sciences, in their 2006 report, said "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2000 years."
 
  • Like
Reactions: thaumaturgy
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
75
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟24,283.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I use peer-reviewed data, you use peer-reviewed data. My data is just better than yours, as it has been through a trial by fire, and has been vindicated by the national academy of science.

What I linked is merely discussion which casts yet more doubts on your data.

I see, your data is better because you use it. I see now. Gee, I guess I lose.

Let's look at the data worldwide for the Little Ice Age, from about 1500-1750 or so. The exact dates vary with the author.

This is important. I am merely showing that the world was very cold at the time of the little ice age. By comparison, we are warm today. So don't twist this to try to say that I am ignoring warming. I am not.

Let's start with Fagan's book

The colder conditions of the Little Ice Age were not confined to Europe and North America. The world was on average one or two degrees Celsius cooler than it is today (during the late Ice Age it was six-to-nine degrees cooler). Precisely dated stalagmites from Cold Air Cave as far away as northern South Africa provide evidence of cooler temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Glaciers advanced, tree lines fell, and seas cooled. Brian Fagan,
Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations (Basic Books, 1999)., Chapter 10 from Fagan 1999 chapter on LIA
**
Little ice age Maunder minimum
Until the onset of the Little Ice Age, the Icelanders also grew a hardy strain of barley in the north, south, and southeast of their homeland. However, the farmers had abandoned barley cultivation in the north by the end of the twelfth century. By the fifteenth century, no one grew cereal crops. Despite occasional experiments, barley did not return for eight centuries. Brian Fagan,
Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations (Basic Books, 1999)., Chapter 10 from Fagan 1999 chapter on LIA
**
Little ice age Maunder minimum
The cold centuries ended in the 1850s, as the Industrial Revolution was at its height. The world entered a new era of warmer temperatures and less extreme climatic swings, apparently triggered by entirely natural causes. (Some experts do wonder whether the higher levels of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by the growing forces of the Industrial Revolution contributed to the warm-up.) The warming has continued to this day, interrupted by occasional colder episodes. The three severe winters of 1939-1942 frustrated Adolf Hitler in France and Russia. Between 1940 and 1975, the world's climate cooled very slightly despite increased carbon dioxide levels, prompting talk of an imminent Ice Age. Since the 1970s the warming has continued. Brian Fagan,
Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations (Basic Books, 1999)., Chapter 10 from Fagan 1999 chapter on LIA
**
Climatologists report that 1997 was the warmest year in the twentieth century, with 1998 promising to be as warm if not warmer. How much of this warmth is due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities is a matter of debate. Perhaps another Little Ice Age is less likely now than it would have been had not the burning of fossil fuels increased so dramatically during the twentieth century. But we would be foolish to assume that another Little Ice Age is an impossibility.
Brian Fagan,
Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations (Basic Books, 1999)., Chapter 10 from Fagan 1999 chapter on LIA
**
The following section on scapegoating is from Fagan's The Little Ice Age (Basic Books, 2000):
"As climatic conditions deteriorated, a lethal mix of misfortunes descended on a growing European population. Crops failed and cattle perished by diseases caused by abnormal weather. Famine followed famine bringing epidemics in their train, bread riots and general disorder brought fear and distrust. Witchcraft accusations soared, as people accused their neighbors of fabricating bad weather…. Sixty-three women were burned to death as witches in the small town of Wisensteig in Germany in 1563 at a time of intense debate over the authority of God over the weather. Witch panics erupted periodically after the 1560s. Between 1580 and 1620, more than 1,000 people were burned to death for witchcraft in the Bern region alone. Witchcraft accusations reached a height in England and France in the severe weather years of 1587 and 1588. Almost invariably, a frenzy of prosecutions coincided with the coldest and most difficult years of the Little Ice Age, when people demanded the eradication of the witches they held responsible for their misfortunes. As scientists began to seek natural explanations for climatic phenomena, witchcraft receded slowly into the background." Fagan 1999 chapter on LIA

Note the impact of the sun on the 17th century little ice age--from a peer reviewed journal.

"The present model serves purely to model the secular (long term) trend in the solar constant. The model suggests a change of approx. 0.5 W/sq m for the differences between the late twentieth century solar constant and the 17th century solar constant. This supports Eddy's view that this difference could give rise to the glacial increase during the little ice age of the 17th century. Important for present day climate studies, is that it shows the recent peak activity (peaking in 1958) is associated with an atypically high value of the solar constant, with respect to the past few hundred years." Kenneth H. Schatten, and Jerome A. Orosz, "A solar Constant Mode for Sun-Climate Studies: 1600-2000 AD." Solar Physics, Aug 1990, 175-180 A solar constant model for sun-climate studies: 1600-2000AD

The first Little Ice Age advance in this area began more than 500 years ago and peaked in the early 17th century. An earlier Neoglacial advance began about 2800-3000 cal yr ago and may have lasted for hundreds of years. There is also evidence for an intervening advance of even smaller magnitude around 1200-1300 cal yr ago. The advances are broadly synchronous with those in other parts of western North America, indicating that they were caused by regional, possibly global, changes in climate. Plant communities within the study area did not change dramatically during the late Holocene. The ranges of some plants, however, likely retracted or extended near treeline in response to changes in mean temperatures of perhaps 1-2 degrees C, as well as changes in summer snow cover. The greatest changes in vegetation occurred within and just beyond the forefields of Berendon, Frank Mackie, and other nearby glaciers. The largest climate shifts of the last 3000 years took place during the late Little Ice Age and the last century. Climate warmed about 1-2 degrees C during the 20th century, accompanied by a rise in treeline, an increase in coniferous tree cover in the subalpine zone, and an increase in the temperature and biological productivity of ponds. These trends are likely to continue if climate, as expected, continues to warm. "John J. Clague, Barbara Wohlfarth, Jeremy Ayotte, M. Eriksson, Ian Hutchinson, Rolf W. Mathewes, Ian R. Walker, and Lauren Walker "Late Holocene environmental change at treeline in the northern Coast Mountains, British Columbia, Canada" Quaternary Science Reviews (December 2004), 23(23-24):2413-2431

The coldest conditions of the `Little Ice Age' were experienced from ~AD 1700 to the mid-nineteenth century, when extensive ice cover on the lake led to widespread anoxic conditions in the deepest parts of the lake basin. An overall decline in median grain size over the last 1000 years indicates a reduction in the energy available to transport sediment to the lake. Many of these features of the record are also observed in other palaeoclimatic records from the North American Arctic. The very recent appearance of the diatom Campylodiscus, which was not observed throughout the record of the last millennium, suggests that a new threshold in the ontogenetic development of the lake has now been passed."M. R. Besonen, W. Patridge, R. S. Bradley, P. Francus, J. S. Stoner, and M. B. Abbott A record of climate over the last millennium based on varved lake sediments from the Canadian High Arctic (in Special issue in honour of Professor Frank Oldfield)
The Holocene (February 2008), 18(1):169-180

Investigating the Little Ice Age in the Southern Alps of New Zealand (in , Anonymous,)
Jessica L. Black
Geological Society of America (GSA), United States, Boulder, CO
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a late Holocene interval of climate cooling, registered in the North Atlantic region by expansion of alpine glaciers and sea ice. Here the LIA includes an early phase from around AD 1280 to 1390 and a main phase from around AD 1556 to 1860, followed by warming and ice retreat. It has recently been demonstrated from records of North Atlantic ice-rafted debris that the LIA is the latest cooling episode in a pervasive 1500 yr cycle of the climate system that may lie at the heart of abrupt climate change. This raises the question of whether the LIA climate signal is globally synchronous (implying atmospheric transfer of the climate signal) or out of phase between the polar hemispheres (implying ocean transfer of the climate signal by a bipolar seesaw of thermohaline circulation). New Zealand is ideally situated to address the problem as it is located on the other side of the planet. Glaciers in the Southern Alps of New Zealand respond to climate change on a decade timescale. The moraines deposited by these glacier oscillations are therefore ideal for determining the character of the LIA signal in the Southern Hemisphere. A detailed chronology of the Hooker and Mueller Holocene moraine systems was constructed using geomorphologic maps, historical records, and the FALL lichenometry technique. This study found that the Holocene moraines fronting the Mueller and Hooker Glaciers were deposited predominantly during the main phase of the LIA."
Jessica L. Black, "Investigating the Little Ice Age in the Southern Alps of New Zealand (in Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 36th annual meeting, Anonymous,) Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America (March 2001), 33(1):84

I would note that most of the post 5000 year history of glaciers in Switzerland were hovering around levels seen TODAY. the retreat of the Alpine glaciers today is because they are retreating from their expansion in the Little Ice Age.

"After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene." Ulrich E. Joerin, Thomas F. Stocker, and Christian Schluechter "Multicentury glacier fluctuations in the Swiss Alps during the Holocene" The Holocene (July 2006), 16(5):697-704

in Siberia 1000 years ago, the trees grew above the current treeline--meaning that it was WARMER then than now--contrary to the hysteriacs who think that these times and this warming is unprecedented. It isn't. Note the warmth before the Little Ice Age.

"In Western Siberia, advances in the tree lines during the warming weather of the first half of the 20th century were "part of a long-term reforestation of tundra environments." Swiss scientists note that "stumps and logs of Larix sibirica can be preserved for hundreds of years," and that "above the ree line in the Polar Urals such relict material from large, upright trees were sampled and dated, confirming the existence, around A.D. 1000, of a forest tree line 30 meters above the late 20th century limit." They also note that "this previous forest limit receded around 1350, perhaps caused by a general cooling trend." Thus, the Siberian tree lines testify to the Medieval Warming and the
Little Ice Age far from Europe." Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, " The hysical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle," NCPA Policy Report No. 279 September 2005, p. 13-14
ISBN #1-56808-149-9 http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st279.pdf

What is melting is the Little Ice Age permafrost. It wasn't there before the Little Ice Age 500 years ago, but everyone is panicked.

"Thawing of Little Ice Age permafrost is ongoing at many locations. There are some indications that Late Holocene permafrost has begun to thaw at some undisturbed locations in northeastern Europe and in northwest Siberia. Projections of future changes in permafrost suggest that by the end of the 21st century. Late Holocene permafrost in Russia may be actively thawing at all locations and some Late Pleistocene permafrost could start to thaw as well. "Vladimir E. Romanovksy, A. L. Kholodov, S. S. Marchenko, Naum G. Oberman, D. S. Drozdov, G. V. Malkova, N. G. Moskalenko, Alexander A. Vasiliev, D. O. Sergeev, and M. N. Zheleznyak Thermal state and fate of permafrost in Russia; first results of IPY (in Ninth international conference on Permafrost) International Conference on Permafrost (ICOP) Proceedings (2008), 9 1511-1518

Notice that this article says that we have seen 2-4 deg warming SINCE the Little Ice Age.

"More recently, temperature profiles from deep boreholes show an inflection associated with near-surface warming of 2 degrees to 4 degrees C since the Little Ice Age. Simultaneously, the southern limit of permafrost has moved northwards. " C. R. Burn Field Investigations of permafrost and climatic change in Northwest North America (in )
Collection Nordicana (1998), 57 107-120

Since we have only warmed 1.1 deg C in the last 100 years, that means that the warming SINCE the LITTLE ICE AGE has been around .9 to 2.9 deg C meaning that on average, the estimate is that there is more warming before this last century than during it.

That is enough for tonight.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
75
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟24,283.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is rich!

Did I get an apology when I was accused of wasting electricity after I informed you that for the previous 3 months I'd generated more electricity back to the grid than I used?

Originally you stated:

(I've highlighted the bit in red)

I obviously do care enough about it. I then informed you of what I had done (put in solar, generated net positive electricity back to the grid, xeriscaping my yard to save water, driving fuel efficient cars, bicycling where possible in town, etc.)

Did I get an apology?

No, this is what I was got:



So it makes me wonder what the word "hypocrite" means to you, Glenn, that you suddenly want "common courtesy".

^_^

What you are doing is avoiding my questions. So, I will avoid yours.


I think I will answer this post when you tell me if you think what Phil Jones is doing is correct. Again, here is the quotation from this guy.


Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
Global Warming ate my data ? The Register

So, Thaumaturgy, should we trust Phil Jones, who has 'lost' the original data and thus no one can check up on him (how convenient)? Is what he is doing good science? How would you know.

My bet is that you won't answer this question.
 
Upvote 0

Thistlethorn

Defeated dad.
Aug 13, 2009
785
49
Steering Cabin
✟23,760.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
A big fat non sequitur if I ever saw one. Nobody doubts that the years between around 1600 and 1850 were colder than average. This is clearly demonstrated in the Mann graph. However, this completely contradicts your earlier claim that the current heating trend started in 1600. Again, the graph shows us that that just isn't so. The years from between 1600 to around 1850 were, as you say, colder than average. From 1850, on the other hand, the temperature shoots straight up.

The Mann graph clearly demonstrates that the current heating trend is the fastest and reaches the highest in recorded temperature history. The trend that started around 1850, remember?
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
75
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟24,283.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I had said that Billion Barrel Baggins had made inflated claims about his credentials. he replied:

Have I ? Where?

Post 56, you admitted that you inflated your credentials.


I had written:
"Don't get me wrong, Baggins, what you do is absolutely essential but what you said does inflate things a bit."

to which, Billion Barrel replied:

"Very true, but it is the cry of the exploration or processing geophysicist down the years - they do the work the interpreter sticks a few coloured lines on the paper ( I am going back a few years hear ) and gets the kudos."

So, that is where, Billion Barrel. You aren't worth much more of my time because you can't seem to get your facts straight.
Edited to add: In a previous post Baggins had said that he could 'see' oil on raw seismic. I can tell you from personal experience you can't see oil on even fully processed seismic. You can see what MIGHT be oil but which the drill bit says has no oil after you drill it. I am amazed that Billion barrel Baggins, who has 'seen' a billion barrels continues with his silly claims to fame.



And by challenging me on my qualifications, you forgot to do your research before asking me if I was a mere roughneck. By now hopefully you will have seen my publications.

But, why is it that AGW advocates must always try to tarnish the credentials of those with whom they disagree? Because they can't handle the actual data.

Thaumaturgy didn't respond to my plots where I took the IPCC predictions for the future temperature rise and applied it to the past. The actual temperature rise seen in the past is much much lower than what the IPCC tries to scare us with. But, of course Thau won't comment on those charts. He also won't comment on Phil Jones' utter incompetence in losing the contracts and losing the raw data which was under his management. Now we are left having to believe that the Hadcrut data is correct even though no one will ever be able to check him out. We must BELIEVE him. But of course AGW advocates won't condemn the attitude of Jones--because, if they do, they lose a major leg of their support. AGW has become a religion, the Church of the Warm Globe. The only doctrine of which is escalogical in nature--REPENT, the world will end soon because of your ecological sins..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
75
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟24,283.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A big fat non sequitur if I ever saw one. Nobody doubts that the years between around 1600 and 1850 were colder than average. This is clearly demonstrated in the Mann graph. However, this completely contradicts your earlier claim that the current heating trend started in 1600. Again, the graph shows us that that just isn't so. The years from between 1600 to around 1850 were, as you say, colder than average. From 1850, on the other hand, the temperature shoots straight up.

The Mann graph clearly demonstrates that the current heating trend is the fastest and reaches the highest in recorded temperature history. The trend that started around 1850, remember?


Bull roar. What nonsense is the claim that the highest temperatures are those we experience today. Let's look at the Deuterium record. The highest temperature in history is from 5-8000 years ago. All you want to do is look at the present time. From the Vostok deuterium temperature curve the picture below shows that 8000 years BP was hotter than today, and the Eemian was even hotter than that! Try again Thistlethorn.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
75
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟24,283.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The graph I presented is the most famous graph in Global Warming history. As such, I am fairly shocked that you haven't heard of it. It first rose to fame in 1998, as I recall, when Michael Mann and his team compiled temperature data from all over the world to replace the earlier compilation made by H.H. Lamb, using mainly data from within and around the UK. This later graph was dubbed the "Hockey Stick" due to it's conspicuous shape.

No, I had heard of it. The literature has largely discredited Mann's removal of the Little Ice Age, which is why, I posted all that data on the world wide nature of the Little Ice Age. Mann tried to say it was only a European affair. It wasn't.

This graph does away with the Medieval Warm Period almost completely, and shows it for the local thing it was. There has been a lot of controversy over this graph, as denialists have tried their utmost to debunk it, without success. Finally, in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences - charged to rule on the graph-controversy in 2005 - released their report, with slight criticism of Mann's data compilation, but largely affirming the validity of his conclusions.

The following year, in 2007, the IPCC re-published the Mann graph, along with data from other teams, following their own methodologies, and again, the original conclusion was affirmed. In 2008, Mann and his team produced a new graph (the one I showed you), incorporating the suggestions from the National Academy of Sciences panel, stretching the graph back an additional 700 years.

And Mann has been discredited in that removal of the Medieval warm epoch as well. He is simply discredited, except among believers.

Ok, I don't recall you answering the question about Phil Jones. Is what he doing, is that good science?
 
Upvote 0

Thistlethorn

Defeated dad.
Aug 13, 2009
785
49
Steering Cabin
✟23,760.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Bull roar. What nonsense is the claim that the highest temperatures are those we experience today. Let's look at the Deuterium record. The highest temperature in history is from 5-8000 years ago. All you want to do is look at the present time. From the Vostok deuterium temperature curve the picture below shows that 8000 years BP was hotter than today, and the Eemian was even hotter than that! Try again Thistlethorn.

Are you going to keep dancing around the issue? Look at the graph. It lines up perfectly with increased CO2 emissions. It shows a rise in temperature unprecedented in recent history. It is strongly indicative to something other than natural causes. The sun spot thing I've already dealt with. Sun spots or solar activity cannot explain the rise in temperature we see today. Couple this with the well know qualities of green house gases, and we have a smoking gun.

I really don't get you. You seem determined to live in the past, pointing to periods thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago, were the earth was warmer for well known reasons, and try to make an argument that what we see to day is just like that, despite the fact that those well known natural causes don't apply today. Today we have well known un-natural causes.

I'll go through it again and see if you get it this time.

1. We know temperature is rising. We can see the effects of this in the thickness of the arctic ice shelf, the migration patterns of birds and marine animals, etc.
2. We know temperature has been rising since around 1850, shortly after the industrial revolution when humans started pumping ever increasing amounts of green-house gases into the atmosphere. There has been no continual rise since 1600 like you claim. The data just doesn't agree with you, nor do you yourself apparently, as evidenced in your post above.
3. We know the chemical qualities of these green-house gases, and we know what effects they should have if released in vast quantities into the atmosphere.
4. As predicted by looking at these chemical qualities, the temperature is rising as we pump ever increasing amounts of the stuff into the atmosphere. Causation is evident, and has been shown by multiple independent lines of evidence.

All this has been shown to be true, and yet you go on and on about the Holocene like it mattered to today's global warming. It's what we know as a "red herring", a tactic commonly used by creationists on these boards. It's dishonest, and does not help your argument. If you want to publish your own research, do so. Get it peer-reviewed and I'm sure you could revolutionize the field of climatology if you are correct, which, according to data, you aren't.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Thistlethorn

Defeated dad.
Aug 13, 2009
785
49
Steering Cabin
✟23,760.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
No, I had heard of it. The literature has largely discredited Mann's removal of the Little Ice Age, which is why, I posted all that data on the world wide nature of the Little Ice Age. Mann tried to say it was only a European affair. It wasn't.

No, Mann hasn't been discredited at all. He didn't remove the little ice age. It's there in the graph. Mann's graph has been affirmed by subsequent research, and the National Academy of Sciences has made their ruling. I'm sorry, but you lost.

And Mann has been discredited in that removal of the Medieval warm epoch as well. He is simply discredited, except among believers.

No, he hasn't been discredited for that either. It just wasn't there when the data was compiled. As I said, this data has been confirmed by other researchers, and has been affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.

Ok, I don't recall you answering the question about Phil Jones. Is what he doing, is that good science?

I don't recall you asking me that question, but rather thaumaturgy. Even so, it's just another red herring. What Jones is or isn't doing has absolutely no bearing on the fact that you are plain wrong about your assertions in this thread, and the data has clearly shown so.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Billion barrel Baggins is once again caught flat footed and totally unknowledgeable about anything. Billion Barrel, you should stop before you embarass yourself further.

I'm not embarrassed. This thread has gone exactly as Thaumaturgy predicted it would go.

You would lie, move goal posts argue semantics and refuse to back your statements up.

This is a post prime example you are arguing about a flippant aside I made about my credentials being better than yours - which they most certainly are.

Thaumaturgy pointed out that you would use argument from authority because you are an exploration geophysicist, I was just pointing out that if that was the case then people should listen to me instead because I am a better exploration geophysicist. Thus popping the small balloon of your argument from authority.

Somehow in your mind that has become me claiming to have found billions of barrels of oil. Which is something I never claimed and you know I never claimed.

I have undoubtedly found more oil and gas than you because I have looked at more seismic than you

Now Billion Barrel Baggins, lets hear of your publications and how you found oil by riding a boat? I think you were saying that you collected the seismic data (a very useful thing) but then handed it off to others who actually did the mapping, found the oil and got the credit. Weren't you?
[/QUOTE]

My publication was my masters thesis and anyone can find oil and gas riding a boat if they know what to look for as you probably well know.

I'd rather talk about the political reasons for you denying AGW and why you try and pretend that they are scientific.

Also why you try and side track your threads with arguments about what find means.

But it seems Thaumaturgy was spot on, argument from authority is extremely important to you and when that authority is challenged and belittled you get extremely aggressive and start making things up about people.

All in all you are very interesting case, sadly you are almost entirely a puffed up argument from authority as Thaumaturgy pointed out, hence the unhinged aggression when that is challenged by someone better qualified than you.
 
Upvote 0

Gracchus

Senior Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
7,199
821
California
Visit site
✟30,682.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Just one thing, grmorton: It doesn't really matter how much oil anyone found or who has published the most papers in oil industry literature.

Do you understand meteorology? Which parts of the gas laws are in error? The gas laws indicate that releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will cause warming. The science of meteorology predicts that warming will cause climate change.

It doesn't really matter to this discussion whether you can stomp your foot and detect an oil field and defecate a drilling rig on demand.

Can you address the meteorolgy, or tell us why the gas laws don't apply? Forget the literature, which is beyond most of us, and work from first principles of physics and thermodynamics.



:confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: thaumaturgy
Upvote 0