Decline of Bronze Age 'megacities' linked to climate change

Feb 26, 2014

Scientists from the University of Cambridge have demonstrated that an abrupt weakening of the summer monsoon affected northwest India 4,100 years ago. The resulting drought coincided with the beginning of the decline of the metropolis-building Indus Civilisation, which spanned present-day Pakistan and India, suggesting that climate change could be why many of the major cities of the civilisation were abandoned.

The research, reported online on 25 February, 2014, in the journal Geology, involved the collection of snail shells preserved in the sediments of an ancient lake bed. By analysing the oxygen isotopes in the shells, the scientists were able to tell how much rain fell in the lake where the snails lived thousands of years ago.

The results shed light on a mystery surrounding why the major cities of the Indus Civilisation (also known as the Harappan Civilisation, after Harappa, one of the five cities) were abandoned. Climate change had been suggested as a possible reason for this transformation before but, until now, there has been no direct evidence for in the region where Indus settlements were located.

Moreover, the finding now links the decline of the Indus cities to a documented global scale climate event and its impact on the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Early Bronze Age civilisations of Greece and Crete, and the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, whose decline has previously been linked to abrupt climate change.

"We think that we now have a really strong indication that a major climate event occurred in the area where a large number of Indus settlements were situated," said Professor David Hodell, from Cambridge's Department of Earth Sciences. "Taken together with other evidence from Meghalaya in northeast India, Oman and the Arabian Sea, our results provide strong evidence for a widespread weakening of the Indian summer monsoon across large parts of India 4,100 years ago."

Hodell together with University of Cambridge archaeologist Dr Cameron Petrie and Gates scholar Dr Yama Dixit collected Melanoides tuberculata snail shells from the sediments of the ancient lake Kotla Dahar in Haryana, India. "As today, the major source of water into the lake throughout the Holocene is likely to have been the summer monsoon," said Dixit. "But we have observed that there was an abrupt change, when the amount of evaporation from the lake exceeded the rainfall – indicative of a drought."

At this time large parts of modern Pakistan and much of western India was home to South Asia's great Bronze Age urban society. As Petrie explained: "The major cities of the Indus civilisation flourished in the mid-late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC. Large proportions of the population lived in villages, but many people also lived in 'megacities' that were 80 hectares or more in size – roughly the size of 100 football pitches. They engaged in elaborate crafts, extensive local trade and long-ranging trade with regions as far away as the modern-day Middle East. But, by the mid 2nd millennium BC, all of the great urban centres had dramatically reduced in size or been abandoned."

Many possible causes have been suggested, including the claim that major glacier-fed rivers changed their course, dramatically affecting the water supply and the reliant agriculture. It has also been suggested that an increasing population level caused problems, there was invasion and conflict, or that climate change caused a drought that large cities could not withstand long-term.

"We know that there was a clear shift away from large populations living in megacities," said Petrie. "But precisely what happened to the Indus Civilisation has remained a mystery. It is unlikely that there was a single cause, but a climate change event would have induced a whole host of knock-on effects.

"We have lacked well-dated local climate data, as well as dates for when perennial water flowed and stopped in a number of now abandoned river channels, and an understanding of the spatial and temporal relationships between settlements and their environmental contexts. A lot of the archaeological debate has really been well-argued speculation."

The new data, collected with funding from the Natural Environment Research Council, show a decreased summer monsoon rainfall at the same time that archaeological records and radiocarbon dates suggest the beginning of the Indus de-urbanisation. From 6,500 to 5,800 years ago, a deep fresh-water lake existed at Kotla Dahar. The deep lake transformed to a shallow lake after 5,800 years ago, indicating a weakening of the Indian summer monsoon. But an abrupt monsoon weakening occurred 4,100 years ago for 200 years and the lake became ephemeral after this time.

Until now, the suggestion that climate change might have had an impact on the Indus Civilisation was based on data showing a lessening of the monsoon in Oman and the Arabian Sea, which are both located at a considerable distance from Indus Civilisation settlements and at least partly affected by different weather systems.

Hodell and Dixit used isotope geochemical analysis of shells as a proxy for tracing the climate history of the region. Oxygen exists in two forms – the lighter 16O and a heavier 18O variant. When water evaporates from a closed lake (one that is fed by rainfall and rivers but has no outflow), molecules containing the lighter isotope evaporate at a faster rate than those containing the heavier isotopes; at times of drought, when the evaporation exceeds rainfall, there is a net increase in the ratio of 18O to 16O of the water. Organisms living in the lake record this ratio when they incorporate oxygen into the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) of their shells, and can therefore be used, in conjunction with radiocarbon dating, to reconstruct the climate of the region thousands of years ago.

Speculating on the effect lessening rainfall would have had on the Indus Civilisation, Petrie said: "Archaeological records suggest they were masters of many trades. They used elaborate techniques to produce a range of extremely impressive craft products using materials like steatite, carnelian and gold, and this material was widely distributed within South Asia, but also internationally. Each city had substantial fortification walls, civic amenities, craft workshops and possibly also palaces. Houses were arranged on wide main streets and narrow alleyways, and many had their own wells and drainage systems. Water was clearly an integral part of urban planning, and was also essential for supporting the agricultural base.

At around the time we see the evidence for climatic change, archaeologists have found evidence of previously maintained streets start to fill with rubbish, over time there is a reduced sophistication in the crafts they used, the script that had been used for several centuries disappears and there were changes in the location of settlements, suggesting some degree of demographic shift."

"We estimate that the climate event lasted about 200 years before recovering to the previous conditions, which we still see today, and we believe that the civilisation somehow had to cope with this prolonged period of drought," said Hodell.

The new research is part of a wider joint project led by the University of Cambridge and Banaras Hindu University in India, which has been funded by the British Council UK-India Education and Research Initiative to investigate the archaeology, river systems and climate of north-west India using a combination of archaeology and geoscience. The multidisciplinary project hopes to provide new understanding of the relationships between humans and their environment, and also involves researchers at Imperial College London, the University of Oxford, the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur and the Uttar Pradesh State Archaeology Department.

"It is essential to understand the link between human settlement, water resources and landscape in antiquity, and this research is an important step in that direction," explained Petrie. "We hope that this will hold lessons for us as we seek to find means of dealing with climate change in our own and future generations."

Explore further: Study: Violence, infectious disease and climate change contributed to Indus civilization collapse

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The water cycle amplifies abrupt climate change

Jan 19, 2014

During the abrupt cooling at the onset of the so-called Younger Dryas period 12680 years ago changes in the water cycle were the main drivers of widespread environmental change in western Europe. Thus, the ...

Recommended for you

Fires in Central Africa During July 2014

10 hours ago

Hundreds of fires covered central Africa in mid-July 2014, as the annual fire season continues across the region. Multiple red hotspots, which indicate areas of increased temperatures, are heavily sprinkled ...

NASA's HS3 mission spotlight: The HIRAD instrument

20 hours ago

The Hurricane Imaging Radiometer, known as HIRAD, will fly aboard one of two unmanned Global Hawk aircraft during NASA's Hurricane Severe Storm Sentinel or HS3 mission from Wallops beginning August 26 through ...

Fires in the Northern Territories July 2014

Jul 23, 2014

Environment Canada has issued a high health risk warning for Yellowknife and surrounding area because of heavy smoke in the region due to forest fires. In the image taken by the Aqua satellite, the smoke ...

User comments : 105

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2014
Here's some honest confusion. I thought, according to current climate theory, that there simply are no "abrupt changes" in climate absent human activity or intervention. I thought that most CLIMATE changes occurred over tens of thousands of years at their most rapid. Am I missing something? Seriously and no sarcasm intended here.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2014
MM: Good question and I am, sometimes, surprised to see how quickly things changed in the past. The real research is in finding a causal mechanism for the change. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of improving the records and the models to improve the fidelity of the historic predictions. When they run into issues, there is a lot of research done to figure out why things happened. We know of many things that can cause changes. The best predictions for the present are linked to the increase of CO2. That is constantly being tested and they improve the models by adding in smaller volcanoes, prevailing winds that have changed, monsoons, etc... as they become aware of them. What is happening is that the models are getting better all the time and they seem to be pointing at CO2 as the present culprit. That does not mean that other influences are not at play, only that CO2 models the present situation well.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2014
Continued: As has been pointed out by many posters, the climate is always changing. We are in a warming period that started 12,000 years ago. However, that does not mean that the present warming we are seeing is not due to green-house gases. Statistics show it is and there is no evidence it is not. The fact that we have seen spikes before due to natural causes does not mean we are not seeing a human induced cause now. It is just bad science to try to couple two events with similar outcomes when the causal basis for one of those has no explanation. As we typically see on these threads, people bring up the idea that CO2 follows warming, not warming following CO2 in the records. What that means is that we are driving the climate this time and not the climate driving a feedback mechanism by a different means. So, I hope they keep finding more rapid changes and the causal mechanisms so we can better understand feedback for this foray into the unknown...
Modernmystic
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014
Thermo:

I agree that we are causing the current warming trend, this isn't in dispute. I disagree that anyone has given a good explanation for a sudden shift in climate 4-5000 years ago.
AlwaysThinking
2.6 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2014
Can anyone explain to me why the 1910-1940 warming of 0.50 degrees was natural and why the 1970-2000 warming of 0.57 degrees was man-made per IPCC. Also can anyone explain to me why the new Nature paper by Santer, Solomon and Schmidt claiming volcanoes are the reason for the pause in rising temperatures over the past 15 years is sound science. Where were all these volcanoes over the last 15 years?
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2014
Thermo:

I agree that we are causing the current warming trend, this isn't in dispute. I disagree that anyone has given a good explanation for a sudden shift in climate 4-5000 years ago.


MM: I was not trying to say that there are good explanations for all of the shifts in the past. If I gave that impression, let me correct that. I think we have some good causal relationships for the major long term changes due to orbit, tilt, precession, and large changes in the oceans and crust. However, it becomes more uncertain as the time scales for the perturbations go down and the events go back farther in time. We do better for things that are closer to our time line and show trends. Statistics works in our favor as our sampling improves.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2014
And the Decline of the Modern Age would be due to the LIE that's AGW climate change.
namarrgon
5 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
@Modernmystic: There are many possible sources to sudden climate change. Volcanism and meteor impacts are obvious ones, also sudden topological shifts (e.g. when an ice dam collapses) and resulting meltwater pulses can cause conveyor currents in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to change very rapidly, dramatically altering temperatures and humidity in coastal areas.

http://en.wikiped...e_change
namarrgon
5 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
@thermodynamic: Actually, Marcott et al 2013 showed that global temperatures have actually been cooling slowly for the last 8,000 years (up until very recently).
EnricM
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
Here's some honest confusion. I thought, according to current climate theory, that there simply are no "abrupt changes" in climate absent human activity or intervention. I thought that most CLIMATE changes occurred over tens of thousands of years at their most rapid. Am I missing something? Seriously and no sarcasm intended here.


Yes, you are utterly confused, what means that you haven't understood a word or either modern, ancient or mid-term climate theories. Reading between the lines I also see a certain double intention which I would discourage seeing that you aren't able to keep your own logic at bay.

Because ... I would kindly ask you to recall the "little Ice Age" so cherished by your camp ;)

And the issue is not about Climate Change as a whole, as a permanent change in global climate, but a local temporal climate change that may have made that some monzoons failed for a few years, enough to collapse a civilization and a good reminder of possible future outcomes.
AlwaysThinking
1.1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
So all the intellectual superior analysts on here can't explain to me how 0.50 rise from 1910-1940 was natural and the 0.57 degree rise from 1970-2000 was man-made. 2000-2014 (probably going to be 2000-2030 of no warming, yet CO2 is skyrocketing as I breath in and out. I'd really like to know how we are going to reach 3-4 degrees higher by 2100 when analyzing the past tells us we will only be at most 0.60 degrees warmer at the end of 2060. Then another 30 years of no warming. So in 2090 with just 10 years left to the 2100 cutoff temps are going to rise 3 to 4 degrees in that 10 years. Okay. That's sound.

I guess I believe in analyzing history and analyzing current reality. The experts rely on computer models that couldn't predict the last 17 years of no warming. Sorry I forgot Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer and Sue Solomon found why temps have not gone up of late, volcanoes.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
So all the intellectual superior analysts
All? I'm not sure I've seen any.
explain to me how 0.50 rise from 1910-1940 was natural and the 0.57 degree rise from 1970-2000 was man-made.
I sense an underlying desire in this question.....
2000-2014 (probably going to be 2000-2030 of no warming
Actually, it has been warming, albeit SURFACE temperatures have been RISING at a slower pace than predicted. There are a number of reasons for this, and it may be fun for you to actually look into why this might be happening. Unless, of course, you are too caught up in denying the science to actually look.
Sorry I forgot Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer and Sue Solomon found why temps have not gone up of late, volcanoes.
They account for part of it. Good start! Look into ocean heat sinks.
AlwaysThinking
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
Magnus, I'd like to know how the heat jumped from the surface to the deep oceans bypassing the the first few dozen meters of the ocean. How many laws did that break?

Some believe by pure faith I guess. Actual facts will not persuade a true believer they will turn a blind eye to the laws broken by their made up theories. Heat just jumps now from surface to deep ocean. And Gavin says, hey it's the volcanoes (of which very few have erupted in the 'pause')
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
Magnus, I'd like to know how the heat jumped from the surface to the deep oceans bypassing the the first few dozen meters of the ocean.
It didn't
How many laws did that break?
None

Some believe by pure faith I guess.
Some speak to things they don't understand out of fear and a desire to pontificate on their view of some nebulous conspiracy. Others look at the science and allow the facts to guide their decision making. Yet others read bloggists' opinions and blindly adopt them as their own.

Where do you fit in?
AlwaysThinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
So If I fill a pot of water and put a light bulb just above the surface. The heat will skip the top of the pot of water and go directly to the bottom. That's what you are saying happened in what 2001? 2002? When did the heat magically jump? Your faith has a lot of holes.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
Where do you fit in?

Actual facts will not persuade a true believer they will turn a blind eye to the laws broken by their made up theories. Heat just jumps now from surface to deep ocean. And Gavin says, hey it's the volcanoes (of which very few have erupted in the 'pause')


Ah, the latter!

So I was also right when I said "I sense an underlying desire in this question..... ". Your desire was not to get an answer, your desire was to lead us into discussing your particular take on the conspiracy.

Denialists. So transparent!
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
So If I fill a pot of water and put a light bulb just above the surface. The heat will skip the top of the pot of water and go directly to the bottom. That's what you are saying happened in what 2001? 2002? When did the heat magically jump? Your faith has a lot of holes.
I don't know, have you ever tried it? Or did you just take someone's word for it?

That was rhetorical. (You might want to look that word up in a dictionary.)

You're not very good at this are you?
AlwaysThinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
Ask Trenberth, he tells us the heat jumped to the deep ocean. Is he lying? Gavin agreed with Trenberth

Temps not going up, it jumped to the deep ocean depths
Temps not going up, it's because of volcanoes (the few small ones we got)

Might want to fix your Religion. It's full of laughable excuses.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
Ask Trenberth, he tells us the heat jumped to the deep ocean. Is he lying? Gavin agreed with Trenberth

Temps not going up, it jumped to the deep ocean depths
Temps not going up, it's because of volcanoes (the few small ones we got)

Might want to fix your Religion. It's full of laughable excuses.
And you might want to change your handle. Something like "always believes" or "always falls for" or even "stupidly gullible" or perhaps "always pretends others opinions are mine" or maybe "always wrong".

Denialists! So laughably predictable!
Modernmystic
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2014
Yes, you are utterly confused, what means that you haven't understood a word or either modern, ancient or mid-term climate theories.


Really? Not one word huh?

Reading between the lines I also see a certain double intention which I would discourage seeing that you aren't able to keep your own logic at bay.


Pray...tell...

Because ... I would kindly ask you to recall the "little Ice Age" so cherished by your camp ;)


Which "camp" is that exactly? Please be specific. Do you have a "camp"..a group of people you totally agree with on everything?

And the issue is not about Climate Change as a whole, as a permanent change in global climate, but a local temporal climate change ...


FTR:

Moreover, the finding now links the decline of the Indus cities to a documented global scale climate event...


Do you understand those words or not?
Modernmystic
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2014
MM: I was not trying to say that there are good explanations for all of the shifts in the past. If I gave that impression, let me correct that. I think we have some good causal relationships for the major long term changes due to orbit, tilt, precession, and large changes in the oceans and crust. However, it becomes more uncertain as the time scales for the perturbations go down and the events go back farther in time. We do better for things that are closer to our time line and show trends. Statistics works in our favor as our sampling improves.


Ahhhh, indeed. Now I think I see what you're saying. It's that our methods favor looking at certain times and at certain things with respect to climate. That we really don't have the complete picture of the past, but we can be pretty sure of recent data, trends, and events.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
Ahhhh, indeed. Now I think I see what you're saying. It's that our methods favor looking at certain times and at certain things with respect to climate. That we really don't have the complete picture of the past, but we can be pretty sure of recent data, trends, and events.
I sense a bit of tongue in cheek; however:

While its true that we don't have as complete a picture of the past as we do of the current situation, that does not mean our current knowledge of what is happening is somehow suspect. Your original question was a good one, in that it is the abrupt changes that concern us, but there is more to it than that.

You are certainly aware of the many instances of abrupt climate changes resulting from volcanic activity. These tend to be short term, affecting the planet for a few tens to a couple of hundred years. Todays issues relate not just to the abruptness of the change, but also to the cause (co2) and the ongoing, and expectations of continued, duration of the change
namarrgon
5 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
@"AlwaysThinking": See this NOAA data on ocean heat content, for 0-700m and 0-2000m:

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

See how both those graphs have been going up steadily, including during the last 15 years?

Not sure where you got the idea that heat "jumped" past the shallower ocean waters. Perhaps you should cite the paper that's confused you, and maybe we can help.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
Magnus, I'd like to know how the heat jumped from the surface to the deep oceans bypassing the the first few dozen meters of the ocean. How many laws did that break?

Some believe by pure faith I guess. Actual facts will not persuade a true believer they will turn a blind eye to the laws broken by their made up theories. Heat just jumps now from surface to deep ocean. And Gavin says, hey it's the volcanoes (of which very few have erupted in the 'pause')

That's what the AGW Chicken Littles believe is "science"
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Ask Trenberth, he tells us the heat jumped to the deep ocean. Is he lying? Gavin agreed with Trenberth

Temps not going up, it jumped to the deep ocean depths
Temps not going up, it's because of volcanoes (the few small ones we got)

Might want to fix your Religion. It's full of laughable excuses.


AT,

Perhaps you missed two articles --in particular-- that were published here on physorg in just the past few days.

One article details that the subtropical winds have increased dramatically in velocity.

The other says that the isotherms that (formerly) were stable in the equarorial/subequatorial zones in the southern hemisphere are expanding southwards.

Both off these phenomena lead to greater overturnig of surface waters and consequent heating at depth.

worddigger
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Here's some honest confusion. I thought, according to current climate theory, that there simply are no "abrupt changes" in climate absent human activity or intervention. I thought that most CLIMATE changes occurred over tens of thousands of years at their most rapid. Am I missing something? Seriously and no sarcasm intended here.


Try Noah's flood. The time-frame is the same and a one year global flood would have resulted in global drought conditions afterwards. Just saying!
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
Would have resulted in more than global drought conditions. The movement of the continents alone into a relatively close proximity to their current positions would have boiled the water erupting from the "fountains of the deep". If anything would have survived that and the tumultuous cross currents and criss-cross tsunamis from fast skating continents pushing water around, it would have to survive the increase in water in the atmosphere precipitating out.

Of course, water being a more significant greenhouse gas, that would have made the current problem look like a walk in the park, I suspect. It is hard to know because there are no facts, just ambiguities Creationists hope will align with unknowns in scientific fields.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2014
... I thought, according to current climate theory, that there simply are no "abrupt changes" in climate absent human activity or intervention. ...


Better to ask "Is Man Good?"

Look: The climate changed and those Bronze Age folks had to deal with the adverse effects, not the other way around. The horse happened before the cart.

One might write a similar article about Afghanistan of a thousand years ago when rain fall diminished and whole villages and small walled cities were abandoned for lack of firewood and food ... Same, same with the Chaco Canyon here in North America.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
... I agree that we are causing the current warming trend, this isn't in dispute. I disagree that anyone has given a good explanation for a sudden shift in climate 4-5000 years ago.


Well, I dispute that. We are currently entering another mini ice age, caused primarily by the Sun's diminishing power and reduced Sun spots. Any CO2 link to atmospheric temperature fluctuations has broken down as of 15+ years ago. (See http://en.wikiped..._minimum )
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
Well, I dispute that. We are currently entering another mini ice age, caused primarily by the Sun's diminishing power and reduced Sun spots. Any CO2 link to atmospheric temperature fluctuations has broken down as of 15+ years ago. (See http://en.wikiped..._minimum )


That's OK, you're entitled to your wrong opinion!

You are almost right; we should be moving into another ice age. The atmospheric loading of CO2 has so messed with the Earth's systems that the planet is quickly warming at a time it should be slowly cooling.

FastEddy
4 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2014
Can anyone explain to me why the 1910-1940 warming of 0.50 degrees was natural and why the 1970-2000 warming of 0.57 degrees was man-made per IPCC. Also can anyone explain to me why the new Nature paper by Santer, Solomon and Schmidt claiming volcanoes are the reason for the pause in rising temperatures over the past 15 years is sound science. Where were all these volcanoes over the last 15 years?


Well, those volcanos have not gone away. Over a much larger time frame, say 1000 years ... But if you must: http://en.wikiped...thquakes AND Mount Tambora (see also Year Without a Summer http://en.wikiped...a_Summer )
FastEddy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
One thing for sure:

Never in history have g'ment expenditures and/or increasing taxes changed the weather.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
One thing for sure:

Never in history have g'ment expenditures and/or increasing taxes changed the weather.


True. Of course, never in history has the denial of basic science and observation lead to anything except witch burnings and accusations of heresy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
You are almost right; we should be moving into another ice age. The atmospheric loading of CO2 has so messed with the Earth's systems that the planet is quickly warming at a time it should be slowly cooling
-The previous was an opinion masquerading as a fact. The following is a professional opinion based on a slew of genuine facts:

"Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age
Now we know that cyclic gravitational tugs from Jupiter and Saturn periodically elongate Earth's orbit, and this effect combines from time to time with slow changes in the direction and degree of Earth's tilt that are caused by the gravity of our large moon... In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory..."

-IOW one is worth something while the other is not. Can you tell which is which?

Oh hey maggie this was published in the MIT Review... does this mean they will be withdrawing your backing?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
"Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age
Now we know that cyclic gravitational tugs from Jupiter and Saturn periodically elongate Earth's orbit, and this effect combines from time to time with slow changes in the direction and degree of Earth's tilt that are caused by the gravity of our large moon... In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory..."

@otto
I found a 2009 article in the MIT news but I found no supporting links/studies/documentation for the article (By Franklin Hadley Cocks '63, SM '64, ScD '65 on December 21, 2009)
did you? Do you have any? Would you mind linking it if you have it?

thanks
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age
Now we know that cyclic gravitational tugs from Jupiter and Saturn periodically elongate Earth's orbit, and this effect combines from time to time with slow changes in the direction and degree of Earth's tilt that are caused by the gravity of our large moon... In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory..."

That's hilarious, that is exactly what I was taking about! The Earth was on a slow cool up until the last 150 year or so, and would likely have headed into an ice age just as it's said in this article! Thanks Ghost, you've made my point wonderfully.

Stumpy, check these out: http://https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/17/are-we-headed-for-a-new-ice-age/
http://dotearth.b...amp;_r=0
That second one is the best, and has a
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
duplicate post.....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
150 year or so, and would likely have headed into an ice age just as it's said in this article! Thanks Ghost, you've made my point wonderfully
My god. So when the facts prove you wrong you actually read them as if they something else.

Authority says: "In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling START to coincide again"

Magnus says: "the planet is quickly warming at a time it should be slowly cooling."

IOW we're not due to BEGIB cooling for another millenium or 2.
Would you mind linking it if you have it?

thanks
Why would I have that stumpfman? I suggest you find the original paper. The authors name and employer are in the MIT article.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
My god magnus no wonder you dont have any time to look stuff up - youre too busy posting. 25 posts today at least - thats one post every 15 minutes. The last poster to approach that ppm was... lrrlrr. Oh and of course pussytard.

Suggestion - if you took the time to research what you post instead of doing your stream-of-consciousness thing you might actually learn something. You would ceratinly make far fewer errors I think.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
My god. So when the facts prove you wrong you actually read them as if they something else.
Please, I prefer to be called My Lord or My Better. Let me know if you ever find some facts that dispute me will you? Hard to see any among your bluster and posturing.

Authority says: "In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling START to coincide again"
Milankovitch cycles, such imprecisely known things. Not like knowing how juvenile stalking and immature philistinism affects your posturing! That is on display and easy to see!

Magnus says: "the planet is quickly warming at a time it should be slowly cooling."
There now your getting it! See, easy to follow along when you set aside your stupidity long enough to allow comprehension to begin to filter in!!

IOW we're not due for another millenium or 2.
Hey, by that time, maybe your line will rise above mongoloidism! Doubtful, but science can help!
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
My god magnus
Alright, that's acceptable!
no wonder you dont have any time to look stuff up - youre too busy posting. 25 posts today at least - thats one post every 15 minutes.
Oh, simple math is an issue for you too!! And here I thought is was just word comprehension. Guess I shouldn't be surprised!

Wow you're really are the weakest link. Do you get frustrated when people pat you on the head and smile indulgently? What's it like to take grade 9 nine times? Do you think the boys are pretty?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Why would I have that stumpfman? I suggest you find the original paper. The authors name and employer are in the MIT article.

@otto
well...
I DID find the original paper

http://www.techno...ice-age/

the authors name and employer are there
there are NO links/studies though
Its a nice story on a nice site... very pretty.
I was looking for supporting evidence. But I don't see any supporting data or studies for support
so I put a request for more info to the Dpt Business mgr Katie Rogers as Dr. Cocks e-mail is not listed publicly on the site
I am awaiting a reply. I just wondered if you had data that I didn't
Now that I know you don't, I can move on
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
Why would I have that stumpfman? I suggest you find the original paper. The authors name and employer are in the MIT article.

@otto
well...
I DID find the original paper

http://www.techno...ice-age/

the authors name and employer are there
there are NO links/studies though
Its a nice story on a nice site... very pretty.
I was looking for supporting evidence. But I don't see any supporting data or studies for support
so I put a request for more info to the Dpt Business mgr Katie Rogers as Dr. Cocks e-mail is not listed publicly on the site
I am awaiting a reply. I just wondered if you had data that I didn't
Now that I know you don't, I can move on
Uh thats not a paper. Thats an article. Perhaps you are on the wrong track.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
Hey stumpfman just so you know, this is a paper:
http://newenergyt...Nawi.pdf

-It could allso be from a book. Try harder.
Oh, simple math is an issue for you too!! And here I thought is was just word comprehension. Guess I shouldn't be surprised!
Well mr bipolar I know the difference between 'should already be happening' and 'wont begin for at least 2000 years'. How 'bout you?

So how many posts is it today really? 30? 40? You can get banned for flooding you know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2014
Hey stumpfman just so you know, this is a paper:
http://newenergyt...Nawi.pdf

-It could allso be from a book. Try harder.
Sorry thats not a very good example. Try this:
http://newenergyt...-NiH.pdf
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
Uh thats not a paper. Thats an article. Perhaps you are on the wrong track.

@otto
Gee, Thanks for clarifying that

I did find the ARTICLE published in that magazine
There. I corrected myself.

That ARTICLE still had no PAPERS or cites or reference of supporting data

I was looking for supporting evidence
there is none
hopefully I can get it directly from the author

that better otto?
This would be easier if I had your e-mail and I could clarify everything before I submitted my comments
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Hey by the way, you stupid, juvenile posturing buffoon, I notice that in the article you linked from the MIT Review was written by a Professor from Duke University. Professor Cocks is the Chairman of the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Sciences (that makes him head of his department, which I explain because your word comprehension is so bad) and he says "There's little question that global warming is happening. Climate data show that Earth's average temperature has risen at least 0.7  oC (1.3 oF) over the 20th century. Temperature increases over the 21st century will probably be two and a half to five times as large,because greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide allow sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere but make it harder for outgoing infrared radiation to escape." Seems my opinion is more reflective of the facts than your made up indignation would have us believe!

I think it is SO hilarious how you stupidly put up material without considering its import!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Seems my opinion is more reflective of the facts than your made up indignation would have us believe!
No because you think that AGW is something universities or depts would officially recognize and promote. Theyre not capable of doing that.
hilarious... stupidly... import!
Im not sure mr mania but it seems you are trying to say that this statement from a prof at duke is somehow meant to reflect the official position of the entire department or university. Its not. Does it say it is? No. These people know that that would be inappropriate.

Individuals at universities are free to express professional opinions unencumbered by fears of loss of 'backing' or 'support'. For instance:

Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics dept at Duke, thinks global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.

-Heres a whole list who do not share your opinions:
http://en.wikiped..._warming
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
No because you think that AGW is something universities or depts would officially recognize and promote. Theyre not capable of doing that.
And your saying that Universities, department heads, governmental agencies and others do not officially agree with the consensus view that global warming is a certainty and actively promote science that both gives objective, quantifiable evidence and counters the pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific posturing of climate denialists is either a confirmation of your bias and immaturity or a measure of your hubris and stupidity! Your fallacy of demanding ever increasing levels of "proof" is another symptom of the same thing.

-Heres a whole list who do not share your opinions:
http://en.wikiped..._warming
Fallacy of Biased Sample
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
I did find the ARTICLE published in that magazine
There. I corrected myself.

That ARTICLE still had no PAPERS or cites or reference of supporting data

I was looking for supporting evidence
there is none
I dont know stump it seems you think I ought to be finding these things for you? Im not in the habit of looking stuff up for others, but I do enjoy demonstrating the consequences of careless fabricating.

I do know of a consultant who may be of service however... HERE BOY
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2014
Whats up boss? Stumpy stumbling a bit? I like stumps like I like hydrants and your grandmoms leg.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Individuals at universities are free to express professional opinions unencumbered by fears of loss of 'backing' or 'support'.
Of course they are. I have said the same thing! Tenured Professors are even MORE able to express their opinions! That Professor Jones expressed the clearly biased opinions and incorrect allegations of conspiracy with regard to the events of 9-11 did not cause censor or disciplinary action, the allegations of professional misconduct and fraud did! Does that mean the BYU does not officially support the premise that the actions of 19 lunatics was the sole cause of 9-11?

Give your head a shake!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Yeah youre good at fetching things right? Do you think you could help stumpee out without him having to bother editors of the MIT rag about some 5 yo article theyre not responsible for?
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
You bet! pantpant Im on it like your grandmoms leg! Lets see... stump missed a few things...

"Professor Franklin Hadley Cocks '63, SM '64, ScD '65, teaches energy technology and climate-related courses at Duke University and is the author of Energy Demand and Climate Change (Wiley-VCH), which summarizes energy and climate issues of the past, present, and future."

-A book. Lets check around. Stump could get this on amazon
http://www.amazon...27324461

-and he could check the summary and reviews first to see if it answers his questions. But GOOGLE says there is an article... oh no it is the whole freeking BOOK in google books for stumpy to read.
http://books.goog...;f=false

I dont have to read all THAT do I otto?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Naw, it seems stumpys answers may be found in chap 2 'something_something_milankovic_something_or_other', on pg 21.

Good doggy. Maybe stumpy will give you some kibble or a bitch for your troubles. Maybe magnus' moms not busy.
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Youre welcome otto. Say, why does it seem stumpy and others are willing to uprate people who are obviously willing to lie and post nonsense here at physorg, just to get mutual buttrubbing in return? Do humans really have so little respect for facts and evidence and the TRUTH, and so much desire for buttrubbing? Are you humans really so small and smelly??
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Maybe magnus' moms not busy.
You should hope so, she's not as patient with immature, pouting, grandstanding blowhards as I am!

Juvenile posturing baby, has his ass handed to him in debate, so resorts to the basest of childish insulting and sock puppetry. Go cry somewhere else childish suck-tit!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
so much desire for buttrubbing? Are you humans really so small and smelly??
Well sure doggie youre domesticated too arent you? You know all ABOUT this. What do you and your buddies do when you get together? You sniff each others butts dont you? SMELL is important to humans as well.

Its a tribal thing. Humans will always opt to maintain tribal cohesion at the expense of truth. This explains religion and juggalos, and why dallas has any fans left at all, for examples. This is why science has so much trouble in this world. Its just fun to pretend youre a scientist and it impresses your homies also.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Don't worry, you big pouting baby, I'll not be interacting further with you. I will, however, comment about what a crying little snivelling child you are every time I see you post somewhere else. No wonder aa, gswift and probably many other intelligent posters will not respond to you.

Poor little crybaby, maybe your mommie can wipe the snot off your face. What a crying little buffoon!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
Does that mean the BYU does not officially support the premise that the actions of 19 lunatics was the sole cause of 9-11?
Ahaahaa if BYU has some official stance on that issue youre certainly welcome to post it. Its obvious what the universitys position is regarding faculty:

"BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty," the statement said. "We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."

"Last fall, BYU faculty posted statements on the university Web site that questioned whether Jones subjected the paper to rigorous academic peer review before he posted it at physics.byu.edu. Jones removed the paper from BYU's Web site Thursday at the university's request."
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2014
"BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues," the university statement said.

"Jenkins said BYU's reputation was a consideration, too.

"It is a concern when faculty bring the university name into their own personal matters of concern," she said.

"BYU does not grant tenure, generally regarded as a permanent position, to professors. However, it does give continuing status to professors found worthy after six years on campus.

"Continuing status," Jenkins said, "grants the expectation that faculty members will have continuing employment at the university, although it is not a guarantee. They still need to meet satisfactory performance levels for scholarship, citizenship and teaching."

-Jones had problems with BYU because of his unprofessional conduct, not because of his views.

You never went to school did you?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2014
I dont know stump it seems you think I ought to be finding these things for you

@otto
did I say that? No
I asked if you had something that was not visible to others, as sometimes articles have links that paying members can see/link that others cannot
Im not in the habit of looking stuff up for others

I didnt ask you to, did I?
I looked it up for myself, and I put an inquiry into the author myself
but I do enjoy demonstrating the consequences of careless fabricating

like what?
What have I carelessly fabricated? An OPINION?
My opinion is MINE and I dont give a sh*t if you like it or not
I was looking for information and asked... I also looked for further information myself
and I try to research as much as I can before taking anyones word, especially yours, given your past history with me

still waiting for you to post an e-mail address so I can PROVE TO YOU I AM NOT SOCKS... so when you feel like you can MAN UP, let me know
I will share with you PROOF
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2014
Do you think you could help stumpee out without him having to bother editors of the MIT rag about some 5 yo article theyre not responsible for?

@otto
now the ABOVE is plain proof of STUPID!
do you think you could take the 2 minutes to verify what I wrote? No?
I guess you DIDNT do your homework on that one!
you will notice that I didnt say that I am contacting MIT about the article... I said
the Dpt Business mgr Katie Rogers

who happens to be the business mgr for the Dept. at Duke where Dr. Cocks (the FORMER head of the dept.) works
had you done ANY research yourself and bothered to look that up, you would have found that out for yourself
there is NO e-mail for Dr. Cocks and only a snail-mail address for Duke office or phone numbers listed publicly

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2014
Lets see... stump missed a few things...

"Professor Franklin Hadley Cocks '63, SM '64, ScD '65, teaches energy technology and climate-related courses at Duke University and is the author of Energy Demand and Climate Change (Wiley-VCH), which summarizes energy and climate issues of the past, present, and future."

@arf otto
check the DUKE page again...
you missed the part where it says the Dept. Manager
I got the information for his contact directly from them... not Wiki or amazon

worst otto sock puppet ever
also missed the article posted about the new head of dept. taking over from Dr. Cocks
bad dog
time for electroshock therapy
'something_something_milankovic_something_or_other', on pg 21

you are confusing me with someone else again
man up and post an e-mail coward
I have PLENTY of proof of who I am
I am willing to share it with you
YOU are too cowardly to try and see it, because you KNOW I am NOT SOCKS
Keep on TROLLING
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
Lol another example of Ghost's duplicity (not like another is needed, but cie le vie) I said
That Professor Jones expressed the clearly biased opinions and incorrect allegations of conspiracy with regard to the events of 9-11 did not cause censor or disciplinary action, the allegations of professional misconduct and fraud did!
Note the words "did NOT cause censor". He then posts 6 more times (including his sock-puppet), THEN says this:
-Jones had problems with BYU because of his unprofessional conduct, not because of his views.

You never went to school did you?


My case has been made for me! And my last comment on the idiot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
I didnt ask you to, did I?
-Of course you did...
Do you have any? Would you mind linking it if you have it?
Why would you think I had additional info and what makes you think I wouldnt have to get it off the web? You think I keep links in my back pocket?
I looked it up for myself, and I put an inquiry into the author myself
Stump if you really wanted more info you would have READ the article and LOOKED UP the book, like arf so graciously did for you.

Its obvious you jumped into the discussion to bait me. Otto does not jump through hoops. Arfie jumps through hoops. Did you like what he fetched for you?

Am I insulting you? You bet. I see you are willing to uprate everything your buds say even when it is obvious they are lying and making shit up, because they are willing to do the same thing for you.

This is foul, especially on a science site. You should be man enough to admonish them for such behavior. I mean, you LOOK all manly with that pelt on your head and all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
check the DUKE page again...
you missed the part where it says the Dept. Manager... do you think you could take the 2 minutes to verify what I wrote? No?
No. Like I say Im not in the habit of looking things up for people. I only do this when they are posting shit, and I can prove it.
you are confusing me with someone else again
See, this is how I know you werent really looking for more info. You didnt even LOOK at the google book link arf so obediently gave you. You didnt LOOK at the table of contents which had the milankovic cycles on it. Did you?
man up and post an e-mail coward
Oh sure thing its eat_shit@ottosdiner.org

-Be an adult. Acknowledge your buddy for the lying posturing phoney that he has proven himself to be these last few weeks. Side with those who respect honesty and evidence and TRUTH above all, and who are willing to take the time and effort to SEEK it out; instead of those who only want to groom you for support and mutual butt-rubbing.
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
worst otto sock puppet ever
Arf?? After I went prowling all around the web for you at night, in the rain?

Oh I left a present for you on your back porch. And on the seat of your pickup.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
Lol that's funny, Ghost up votes his own sock puppet! Isn't that akin to virtually playing with yourself? LOL!
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2014
Of course you did

@otto
should have read everything I wrote
I also added
I asked if you had something that was not visible to others, as sometimes articles have links that paying members can see/link that others cannot

that was the whole reason... not
Its obvious you jumped into the discussion to bait me
]
was I trying to bait you, I would have said something like
"look at the idiot that publishes an article with no supporting data or links" or something along those lines
I asked a legitimate question, and you went full retard because you think I am someone I am not, and because you are being a bully thinking that you own the freakin' internet
Normally I ignore you
or had you not caught that?
Stump if you really wanted more info you would have READ the article and LOOKED UP the book

I looked and I got all the information, but I was looking for something specific
arf is a troll
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
Am I insulting you? You bet

@otto
you cannot insult me, as that would mean that I really care about what you have to say
given that you are a two-bit bullying coward who cannot find the cojones to learn the truth, then why would I care? I am here to learn, and sometimes I get in conversations
you are here to bully and be an *sshole
I see you are willing to uprate everything your buds say ...for you

well, given that the site is full of sock-puppets and people like you... I will upvote them out of spite against you, because I know that annoys you
otherwise why mention it? Who cares?only you, apparently
This is foul, especially on a science site

and your behaviour above is not?
I asked a legit question and you jump the gun thinking I am attacking you?
Paranoid much?
What you are doing is TROLLING and trying to start a fight...
No. Like I say Im not in the habit of looking things up for people

I dont care if YOU look it up... I DID look it up
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
No. Like I say Im not in the habit of looking things up for people. I only do this when they are posting shit, and I can prove it

@otto
I dont care
I didnt ask you to look it up, I was pointing out that you didnt bother to check it out all that well
Oh sure thing its eat_shit@ottosdiner.org

like I said. Coward
Side with those who respect honesty and evidence and TRUTH above all, and who are willing to take the time and effort to SEEK it out; instead of those who only want to groom you for support and mutual butt-rubbing

I do. That is why I support those that I do...
and I despise a weasel yellow cowardly bully who hides behind sanctimonious bull-tripe like you
I wouldnt even be talking to you had you not gotten STUPID
you are the one who jumped the gun and decided that your paranoia was talking sense
take your meds
I've NEVER had a problem admitting when I am wrong, even PUBLICLY HERE ON THIS SITE
I will not back down from you because you want to be stupid with me
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
Be an adult. Acknowledge your buddy for...

@otto
really? you are SO TWO FACED its not even funny

Until you downvote obvious TROLLS like arf for being completely retarded and not even comprehending the conversation (f*ck the book, I wanted a study, moron)...then there is no need to downvote anyone I think is right...
and ANYONE that stands up to you when you are being an arrogant bullying yellow coward is right to do so, IMHO
ESPECIALLY when they have provided DOZENS of links supporting their arguments in the past... and even STILL

NOW... about that article:
until you can add some legitimate feedback, I am not dealing with you again (or your sock puppet)

given that you were EITHER too stupid to understand the question even when I explained it to you, or too paranoid to just respectfully answer, as I respectfully asked, then
I will not deal with you on this again

you are NOT the MODERATOR here
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
I am here to learn, and sometimes I get in conversations
you are here to bully and be an *sshole
Then why do you support people who post rubbish like:
The atmospheric loading of CO2 has so messed with the Earth's systems that the planet is quickly warming at a time it should be slowly cooling
?? I took the trouble to demonstrate that maggmutt was off by 2000 years. Instead of admitting his error, maggmutt got all abusive, and you supported him for it. So whos the bully stump? Me or your little pack of butt-rubbers? Is it any wonder that I sicked arfie on you?
you are NOT the MODERATOR here
And neither are you. The equation:

Someone posts shit because they are too lazy to look it up or too arrogant to care.
I do some research and find out theyre wrong.
I post the results.
Arrogant, lazy people start to abuse me and downrate me en masse.

Whos right stump? Your scooby gang?

Whenever I read ignorance I WILL respond. And I WILL be right. And thats the way its going to be.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2014
Until you downvote obvious TROLLS like arf for being completely retarded and not even comprehending the conversation (f*ck the book, I wanted a study, moron)...then there is no need to downvote anyone I think is right...
Im not understanding you here... are you saying that you STILL did not check the book to see if it was based on a study or not?

More bull:
I didnt ask you to look it up, I was pointing out that you didnt bother to check it out all that well
This was an article published in the MIT Technology review, by a respected scientist from Duke. This was not the huffington post. You really that stupid or you just being an asshole*?

See like I say youre full of shit. You had no interest in the info. You were just trying to cause trouble because your buddy was upset boohoo. Youre a liar and a phony stump.

Say what happened to that pic of you with a dead animal on your head? Did you think it affected your credibility?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2014
I shouldn't respond to more of your stupidity, but I had to address this:
See like I say youre full of shit. You had no interest in the info. You were just trying to cause trouble because your buddy was upset boohoo. Youre a liar and a phony stump

conjecture based upon paranoia and being a TROLL
you jumped to conclusions
IF I had wanted to ARGUE with you about the link, I would have brought up Mason Inman's discussion about certain specifics and linked:

http://www.pnas.o...06.short
and
http://www.nature...122.html

YOU are the one being both STUPID otto
I asked a question and you decided to play like you are the moderator of the internet, while not knowing what you were talking about
I would re-post my comment, but given your paranoid reply the first few times and your insistence that I was saying something I was NOT, it would only feed your TROLLING
YOU BALD FACED LIED and GOT CAUGHT
deal with it
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2014
Youre a liar and a phony stump.

Say what happened to that pic of you with a dead animal on your head? Did you think it affected your credibility?

Now you can go boo-hoo and lick your wounds for being shown what an arrogant, stupid TROLL you can be when you decide to second guess people based upon your paranoia and just because YOU would want to start a fight
I dont need to defend Maggnus, he was doing just fine

As for being a phony...
when are you going to give me your e-mail, you coward
you KNOW that I can prove myself
THAT is why you choose to be such a TROLLING Jerk here in the comments

nice try, squirt.
Let me know when you grow up enough to deal like a man
LIE AGAIN, and I will point it out for everyone to see AGAIN

other than that, you are just on the Rygg/Uba/TROLL list, little boy
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
I asked a question and you decided to play like you are the moderator of the internet
Naw, people who think they are moderators will say things like this:
A "skeptic" is welcome; a denialist conspiracist with a political agenda to push is not


-as posted by your buddy Magnus. I would never presume to say such a thing. People can post whatever they want. They may get banned or they might elicit criticism if what they post is WRONG. These things are to be expected.
while not knowing what you were talking about
-Well that's why I tend to post info from respected sources like the MIT Technology Review. Are you saying that THEY don't know what they are talking about? Ahaahaaaa.
when are you going to give me your e-mail, you coward you KNOW that I can prove myself
WHAT are you talking about? Who would be stupid enough to give out personal info on the internet? I have to say that, from your above performance, you are certainly as irrational as pussytard tho. Obviously.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
your insistence that I was saying something I was NOT, it would only feed your TROLLING
YOU BALD FACED LIED and GOT CAUGHT
So you questioned my source which was an article by a respected duke scientist published in the MIT Technology Review. You saw the article which you mistook for a scientific research paper because you apparently didn't know the difference.

And you didn't even read it because you missed the reference to the source which was a book by said author. And when given a link to the book you failed to look through it to see what studies it was actually based on.

Have you done ANY of these things yet stump?? Or are you still waiting for some pr person to spoon-feed you the info or, more likely, to tell you to read the fucking book or, more likely, consider you a crank and ignore you?

This is like calling NASA and asking them why they didn't put microphones on rovers to pick up alien conversations. Remember THAT silliness stump?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2014
So you questioned my source which was ...

ANOTHER BALD FACE LIE
again, just for you, Retard, I asked a question because I wondered if you could see info that I could not, like with paywalled sites
You saw the article which you mistook for a scientific research paper because you apparently didn't know the difference

ANOTHER LIE
read above as well as my original comments
And you didn't even read it

ANOTHER LIE
read it
but wanted to address/learn about the carbon issue which was brought up in the COMMENTS
SEE ABOVE (I guess YOU didnt read it)
...spoon-feed you the info

like I said, I went directly to the author since you were being STUPID and PARANOID
microphones on rovers

WTF??
I not only do NOT remember it, it was NOT ME, MORON
you are thinking of someone else
consider you a crank and ignore you?

this is how I see you, at this point, Mr. Hydrino perpetual motion machine boy

and unless you post MORE lies, I will ignore you
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2014
Or are you still waiting for some pr person to spoon-feed you the info or, more likely,

more specifically about this LIE

I DID read the article, and the COMMENTS TOO
I wanted to address the points put up by Inman
(who DID link studies/references)
I asked you if you saw LINKS from the author because of this: not because you are fighting with someone
HAD I WANTED TO DEFEND MAGGNUS
I would have posted the links above FIRST and directly queried you about Inmans comments which you OBVIOUSLY did NOT read

and ANYONE can make a scrap e-mail and post it, then disable it later, so dont give me that privacy concern crap issue about your cowardice
YOU ARE A TROLL and you KNOW IT

as for your microphone comments wi/NASA
go back to that conversation and check it again
post the link here
IT WAS NOT ME, LIAR

it was PROBABLY one of your OWN SOCK PUPPETS

now put your stupidity back on the shelf and go fight elsewhere
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
Hey STUMP

Otto says:
So you questioned my source
-and stump screams
ANOTHER BALD FACE LIE
But when we look we find that stump indeed said:
you didnt bother to check it out all that well
-and:
That ARTICLE still had no PAPERS or cites or reference of supporting data... I was looking for supporting evidence... there is none
-which are clearly questioning both my ability to choose valid sources and MITs ability to publish them. Not to mention that there WAS a 'source' mentioned - the authors book, which stump apparently chose to disregard. Moving on...

Otto says:
You saw the article which you mistook for a scientific research paper
-and stump screams:
ANOTHER LIE
-But if we scroll up far enough we find:
I DID find the original paper
... So Im SORRY but it appears that you saw an ARTICLE and thought it was a PAPER and didnt 'correct' yourself until you were TOLD that there was a difference.

Now really, who are we supposed to conclude is lying here?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
But wait! Theres more!

Stump says:
HAD I WANTED TO DEFEND MAGGNUS
I didnt say DEFEND. I said SUPPORT...
Then why do you support people who post rubbish
-is what I said. You and your little pack of butt-sniffers travel around and attack and downrate anyone who has the nerve to disagree with you. Look at ryggys activity page:
https://sciencex....2/?v=act

-See the same recurring names? You REALLY think your buddy magnuts has posted enough valid, legitimate science to generate a 3.8, or does this maybe reflect instead enough butt-rubbing to start a bonfire? And perhaps some artificial sockpuppet self-gratification as well.

Youll also note the absence of uprating from the people who agree with him. Its YOU guys who enjoy intimidating and bullying. And like I say when anybody takes issue with gang mambers, you all start SCREAMING and name-calling.

Pretty FOUL stump. Pretty fucking ignorant. Youre not arguing here to clear up a misconception here are you?.
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
I agree with pretty much all that you are saying here otto but I do not understand your problem with butt-sniffing. Perhaps if there was more butt-sniffing in the human world there would be a lot less butt-kissing there.

Butt-sniffing is a great moderator and equalizer in the dog world. If your enemy is willing to sniff your butt then he cant be all that bad now can he?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2014
1st comment:
Would you mind linking it if you have it?

you assumed I had not read it
I did
2nd
I was looking for supporting evidence. Blah blah blah I just wondered if you had data that I didn't
Now that I know you don't, I can move on

I asked because SOME people have access to paywall sites
THIS caused you to go FULL RETARD
I wanted to see certain data due to the comments Inman made against the article you referred to
then you decided to TROLL
you got your sock puppet involved
and accused me of defending Maggnus
you also commented about me talking to MIT when I said I contacted DUKE
something you would have KNOWN had you actually looked up the INFO
THIS IS CONSIDERED A LIE
it is an obvious untruth based upon your paranoid delusion that I am doing something that I am not, even though I explained WHY I asked
posting things out of context always makes you feel good, does it?
I WILL REFUTE OBVIOUS LIES
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
So Im SORRY but it appears that you saw an ARTICLE and thought it was a PAPER and didnt 'correct' yourself until you were TOLD that there was a difference

I know the difference, and you are arguing semantics because I typed a wrong word?
I was looking for a paper/publication supporting the evidence in the "article"
fine. I also admitted my TYPO
you make them all the time, including spelling errors
SO WHAT
I said SUPPORT

and I still dont care
Maggnus was doing JUST FINE
like I pointed out, HAD I WANTED TO SUPPORT OR DEFEND MAGGNUS, I would have posted Inmans comments and links, you moron
LEARN TO READ
See the same recurring names?

Rygg (and everyone else) is irrelevant to THIS discussion
this is about YOU and I
dont try to hide behind Rygg's skirts
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
You REALLY think your buddy magnuts has posted enough valid, legitimate science to generate a 3.8

1- WHY are you so worried about my interactions with someone else?
2- I've seen PLENTY of good VALID supported material
3- THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE
your lies specifically about ME are the issue
Pretty FOUL stump. Pretty fucking ignorant. Youre not arguing here to clear up a misconception here are you?

this is EXACTLY what I am doing
why do you think I keep repeating the same things?
I DONT CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE...

and NORMALLY you post valid info that is researched
WHICH IS WHY I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD MORE INFO (ya moron!)
I thought this was OBVIOUS
especially as I usually dont interact with you
YOU thought I was Trolling or whatever!
you want to argue that, FINE
it is nothing but TROLLING on YOUR part
AND
as long as you post OBVIOUS LIES
I WILL REFUTE IT
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
All this yelling and screaming because you couldn't admit you didn't know what a research paper was?

Which you didn't. I told you to find the original and you gave a link to the article which you called a paper. How is that a typo stump?

But instead of being able to own up to what was a minor lack on your part you end up with a dozen posts full of screaming vitriol. This behavior is identical to that of your buddy Magnus who can't even admit his mistakes on equally minor issues.

And here the 2 of you are, mutually uprating and sharing ratings you clearly don't deserve based on the quality of your posts.
like I said Coward
I tell you what. I myself don't believe in passing notes in class. If you were to send me an email I would feel obligated to post the content of it here in a thread. I use to do this with PMs.

So if you are truly the fearless bear slayer you claim to be, why don't you post this info right here and save me some time? Then the whole class can be the judge.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
you couldn't admit you didn't know what a research paper was?

No. that was a typo, which I admitted to
perhaps you should re-read what was posted
How is that a typo stump?

you are not the only moron I was dealing with
so I typed paper when I meant article
as I produced the link, it is obvious that I meant the article... but you decided to play grammar nazi and thought that I should cower in fear of your prowess
neither will happen
I admitted what I did was not correct, because I am man enough to admit MY mistakes
But instead of being able to own up to what was a minor lack on your part you end up with a dozen posts full of screaming vitriol.

obvious STUPIDITY
did you not read this?
I did find the ARTICLE published in that magazine
There. I corrected myself.

and what we see here is that YOU STILL cant admit that you screwed up!
wow, otto... all the evidence is right above you. I shouldnt have to RE-post it
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
mutually uprating and sharing ratings you clearly don't deserve

I will say this: given posters and trolls that downvote legitimate stuff as well as upvote crap (and right now I consider you in this category) I feel it my right to upvote anyone I choose for whatever reason, even if only to balance out the mis-vote as well as the trolls out there
If you were to send me an email I would feel obligated to post the content of it here in a thread
&
why don't you post this info right here and save me some time?

and as I would e-mail you a picture as proof of who I am, I am not worried about that
you cant post pics here
you claim that I was not a member of the Space Shuttle Rescue team
as I stated before, I CAN PROVE IT with pics of my certs issued
I AM NOT SOCKS
and I have never made a false claim
mistakes I gladly correct: and I have publicly done so here
I DO NOT FEAR CORRECTING MYSELF when I have made a mistake
it is a part of life
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
I feel it my right to upvote anyone I choose for whatever reason, even if only to balance out the mis-vote as well as the trolls out there
-And yet you were comsistently upvoting magnus when he was arguing with me even though he was obviously wrong, and lying about the fact. IOW you were encouraging him.
you cant post pics here
Zephyr and others do it all the time.
you claim that I was not a member of the Space Shuttle Rescue team... I CAN PROVE IT with pics
Hey so can I! Heres some of me and the gang hangin out
http://www.920rqw...p;page=6

-Now you put your pics and docs on a photo site and you put the link HERE so everyone can see it. Ok? Because I would do the exact same thing with anything you chose to send me.

Oh and also include sufficient docs to prove that the person posting as obamasocks wasnt at one time a NASA rescue guy or doesnt otherwise have access to such pilfered, borrowed, or inherited documentation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
And this is interesting...
I will say this: given posters and trolls that downvote legitimate stuff as well as upvote crap (and right now I consider you in this category) I feel it my right to upvote anyone I choose for whatever reason, even if only to balance out the mis-vote as well as the trolls out there
I see I see... So you do advocate the sort of blanket up- and down-rating against people whose opinions you dont happen to agree with? Well this does explain the activities of your gang and the bloated ratings you all seem to share. I even suspect that some of you are posting under more than one nick which is of the same foulness.

And I suppose you could understand that the people you so abuse wouldnt want from time to time to even up the score in a more protracted and concentrated manner? Because the 2 activities would in essence be equivalent yes?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
Hey so can I! Heres some of me and the gang hangin out

show your certs, retard
ANYONE can claim that pic is them, and I see people do it all the time
Zephyr and others do it all the time.

no... Zeph posts LINKS to pictures
you want to go all grammar nazi on that?
Oh and also include sufficient docs to prove that the person posting as obamasocks

I dont care about socks
I can only show you proof of MY PERSONAL CERTIFICATION
(redacted to prevent idiots like you from taking my SSN etc)
http://www.flickr...0524533/
or my wolf
http://www.flickr...0839234/
which PROVES EXACTLY THE CLAIMS THAT I MADE

and I am NOT worried about you showing them off, either. it only helps prove MY POINT
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
So you do advocate the sort of blanket up- and down-rating against people whose opinions you dont happen to agree with?

exactly the same thing that YOU DO
only I dont use SOCK puppets to do it
I even suspect that some of you are posting under more than one nick which is of the same foulness

UNLIKE YOU, I have only ONE log in
THATS IT
in order to prove it, you would have to ask a moderator
And I suppose you could understand that the people you so abuse wouldnt want from time to time to even up the score in a more protracted and concentrated manner? Because the 2 activities would in essence be equivalent yes?

YOU/they already DO
so what would the point be? NONE

Given that YUO ALREADY CAMPAIGN against people that you dont like
and the others also do this with their sock puppets
it really doesnt matter
you will do it regardless of anything that I say
you are just to cowardly to admit it
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
And yet you were comsistently upvoting magnus when he was arguing with me even though he was obviously wrong, and lying about the fact. IOW you were encouraging him.

hmm.. lets see
given that you also support Arf, as well as all your other sock-puppets
and given that you upvote known pseudoscience from time to time (see hydrino perpetual motion machine paper you posted)
that would make me... JUST LIKE YOU
there is NO DIFFERENCE
thats how that works

and given that you will continue
and given that I really dont care WHAT you do
it will essentially be you and your puppets downvoting me out of spite because I proved you wrong
proved that you LIED
proved that you cannot comprehend basic English
proved that you cannot read where I corrected my mistake
proved that you are a bully
and proved that I AM RIGHT about my personal claims of who I am

go do what you must
I will continue just as I always have
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
show your certs, retard
Yah this is where I got mine.
http://spicenewyo...tes.html
ANYONE can claim that pic is them, and I see people do it all the time
-And the same thing is true with nice pics of 'certs'. Who do you think youre trying to kid stump? Why all the effort to prove an identity with stuff which can be so easily faked or stolen? ONLY people who are trying to be somebody they are not, would go to so much effort.

Obamasucks used to do it all the time. Phony pics of phony certs would be her next obvious move, and the level of righteous indignation you are exhibiting at the moment would be just the kind of thing you would expect from someone who thought that THIS TIME she could get away with it.

Look at the above thread. All the yelling and screaming over petty deception, name-calling, the threats of blanket downrating... Typical insane lying trolling bullshit.

Youve proven yourself untrustworthy AGAIN.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
And the same thing is true with nice pics of 'certs'. Who do you think youre trying to kid stump?

thats why I said e-mail
emails can be traced
verified
all I did above was set up an account and post two pics for you
I knew you wouldnt be happy with it
because cowards like you are afraid to address reality face on
thats why you hide here on-line and bully people
Why all the effort to prove an identity with stuff which can be so easily faked or stolen?

actually, there is enough there to verify its authenticity directly
I made sure of that
ONLY people who are trying to be somebody they are not, would go to so much effort

OR people who dont normally lie, can admit their mistakes, and dont like cowards and bullies who think they own the internet and post untruths
I would invite you over to my house, but trespassers & citi-folk dont fare well around here
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
Obamasucks used to do it all the time

how about a pic of me flipping you off WITH the certs? Taken 5 minutes ago?
Would THAT help?
http://www.flickr...1739355/


Look at the above thread. All the yelling and screaming over petty deception, name-calling, the threats of blanket downrating... Typical insane lying trolling bullshit

I KNOW, RIGHT.... thats why no one likes you, OTTO
because you are a "lying trolling bullshit" Con man who hides behind anonymity in an affort to appear smart
guess what. As long as you post lies about me, I WILL refute them, and PROVE that you are wrong, JUST LIKE ABOVE
I dont fear you, boy. You aint got enough sand to ya to make me even concerned

Now go away, get back on topic, or whatever you do
because I CAN prove I am right, just by posting your own words
and I will continue as long as you are willing to post lies
and I am NOT afraid of your sock puppets/boyfriend Zeph either
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
Yah this is where I got mine.
http://spicenewyo...tes.html

there are NO pics on that link
also, there are no demo's either
in fact, none of the links below had pics/demo's either

really should have checked that, tard
Youve proven yourself untrustworthy AGAIN.

Yes, otto... you HAVE PROVEN YOURSELF UNTRUSTWORTHY YET AGAIN

Please, post more things that I can make you look retarded for! Tell me again how I lied... that was a good one, and it busted all over your head with PROOF from YOUR OWN POSTS

I would suggest you go back to topic, but you dont like stuff like that, do you?
especially not when people can prove you wrong with EVIDENCE

http://www.pnas.o...06.short

http://www.nature...122.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
thats why I said e-mail
emails can be traced
verified
Emails can be traced, verified... and thats why you wanted me to set up an addy I guess.
all I did above was set up an account and post two pics for you
I knew you wouldnt be happy with it
because cowards like you are afraid to address reality face on
But then dimwits have no compunctions about posting personal info on the web.
how about a pic of me flipping you off WITH the certs? Taken 5 minutes ago?
Would THAT help?
Ahaahaaa I guess they call you stumpy because of all the missing fingers eh? Were you involved in rescue ops for the columbia disaster ahaahaaa.

No this wont help me but it might help someone to track down more info on you. Like you say, lots of info on that doc. Dates, numbers, locations, partial name... and a nice pic for a passport. Soon youll be able to search faces on the internet did you know it?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
Emails can be traced, verified... and thats why you wanted me to set up an addy I guess

partly, but it works BOTH ways
you could ALSO verify my info
THAT was why I suggested it
But then dimwits have no compunctions about posting personal info on the web

ah, so I'm a troll if I refute you when you lie?
& a dimwit when I can PROVE when you lie?
and as for personal info... there is nothing there that you can use other than the cert info, which CAN be verified
and a nice pic for a passport. Soon youll be able to search faces on the internet did you know it?

yep but it really isnt an issue, is it?
You can also find my pic with Arkansas, Florida, Texas, California, New York, Colorado as well as Germany, Spain, Morocco, France, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia... in fact, just go to Interpol as I had to register my DNA as an investigator with them (and all of the above etc) to exclude me from investigation scenes
given all THAT is already public, this pic means ZILCH
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
& a dimwit when I can PROVE when you lie?
and as for personal info
No captain razorback sirak youre a dimwit for posting any kind of personal info on the internet at all.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2014
No captain razorback sirak youre a dimwit for posting any kind of personal info on the internet at all.

conjecture
razorback? nope. Hurricanes and Golden Eagle, not Razorback

for starters: what exactly is there that is a threat to me? There is nothing in those pics that isn't already available on the web, except that personal note to you in the second pic, otto

secondly: I dare you (or anyone else) to track me down
I will post coordinates to my yard, if you want
NO ONE will try to visit
NO ONE is that stupid
feel free to share as much as you want

unlike you, I have NOTHING to HIDE

almost forgot... there are 4 of us, all prior military with the same name, and socials that are close together (family relations). make sure you got the right one if you do addresses, etc
the others are anti-social and very aggressive
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2014
Hurricanes and Golden Eagle, not Razorback
yeah I can see that.
secondly: I dare you (or anyone else) to track me down
What are you gonna do, shoot me with your coffee cup :(
there are 4 of us
Yeah I can see that too. I'm certainly not threatening you jimmy I am just pointing out how foolish it is to post personal info on the internet. It's not about cowardice it's about common sense.

Something in the back of my mind though - pirouette said she recently retired with her bf and moved to FL, oddly enough. Ritchieguy supposedly raised sweet sorghum in the state. Pussycat_eyes had this hothead bf who supposedly jumped on her computer and posted links to gay porn sites supposedly without her knowledge.

Probably nothing. Does the name Jeannie ring any bells?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2014
Probably nothing. Does the name Jeannie ring any bells?

no
Something in the back of my mind though - pirouette said

who cares, its not me
you should know that by now, moron
What are you gonna do, shoot me with your coffee cup

my FAMILY uses that login, not just me, idiot
and I dont shoot coffee cups, just real guns
"Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age"

care to discuss Mason Inman's points about certain specifics and his linked references?

http://www.pnas.o...06.short

and

http://www.nature...122.html

or how about answering Pink?
no?