Most of last 11,000 years cooler than past decade in North America, Europe

January 31, 2018, University of Wyoming
Little Pond, located in Royalston, Mass., was among 642 ponds or lakes in North America and Europe from which fossil pollen was collected to reconstruct temperatures. The reconstructions, which looked at climate in North America and Europe over the past 11,000 years, closely matched the climate simulations run by NCAR, which were conducted independently as part of separate projects. Credit: David Foster

University of Wyoming researchers led a climate study that determined recent temperatures across Europe and North America appear to have few, if any, precedent in the past 11,000 years.

The study revealed important natural fluctuations in have occurred over past millennia, which would have naturally led to climatic cooling today in the absence of human activity.

Bryan Shuman, a UW professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics, and Jeremiah Marsicek, a recent UW Ph.D. graduate in geology and geophysics, led the new study that is highlighted in a paper, titled "Reconciling Divergent Trends and Millennial Variations in Holocene Temperatures," published today (Jan. 31) in Nature, an international weekly journal of science.

Marsicek, a current postdoctoral researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was lead author of the paper. He worked on the study from 2011-16. Other contributors to the paper were from the University of Oregon, University of Utah and the U.S. Geological Survey in Corvallis, Ore. The study was largely funded by a combination of fellowships from the Environmental Protection Agency and the UW NASA Space Grant Consortium, and grant support from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

"The major significance here is across two continents over the last 11,000 years. The paper provides a geologically long-term perspective on recent temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere and the ability of , such as the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) models used in the study, to predict the changes," says Shuman, senior author on the paper and Marsicek's supervisor. "Climate simulations do a strikingly good job of forecasting the changes."

"I would say it is significant that temperatures of the most recent decade exceed the warmest temperatures of our reconstruction by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit, having few—if any—precedents over the last 11,000 years," Marsicek says. "Additionally, we learned that the climate fluctuates naturally over the last 11,000 years and would have led to cooling today in the absence of ."

The study covers a period that begins at the end of the Ice Age and when there still was an ice sheet covering Canada, Shuman says.

Researchers reconstructed temperatures from collected from 642 lake or pond sites across North America—including water bodies in Wyoming—and Europe. The Wyoming locations included Slough Creek Pond and Cub Creek Pond in Yellowstone National Park, Divide Lake in Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sherd Lake in the Bighorn Mountains and Fish Creek Park near Dubois.

"When we collect sediment from the bottom of the lake, we can recognize sequences of plants that grew in a given area based on the shape of the fossil pollen left behind," Shuman explains. "Because different plants grow at different temperatures, we can constrain what the temperatures were in a given place at a certain time."

Jeremiah Marsicek (standing, gray shirt) and Bryan Shuman (also standing), a University of Wyoming professor of geology and geophysics, hold a coring tube at Deep Pond, located in Falmouth, Mass., on Cape Cod. UW undergraduate student Paul Pribyl (in UW shirt) and an unidentified UW student kneel in the raft as they help prepare collection of the sediment core. Credit: David Foster

The reconstructions closely matched the run by NCAR, which were conducted independently as part of separate projects. The computer simulations later became part of the study.

"Our temperature estimates and the NCAR simulations were within one-quarter of one degree Fahrenheit, on average, for the last 11,000 years," says Shuman, as he pointed to a graph that included a black line for his group's climate research temperature and a gray line that represents the computer simulations. "I was surprised the computer models did as good of a job as they did as predicting the changes that we estimated."

Long-term warming, not cooling, defined the Holocene Epoch, which began 12,000 to 11,500 years ago at the close of the Pleistocene Ice Age. The reconstructions indicate that evidence of periods that were significantly warmer than the last decade were limited to a few areas of the North Atlantic that were probably unusual globally. Shuman says results determined that the last decade was roughly 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer today than it was 11,000 years ago. Additionally, the decade was at least one-half degree Fahrenheit warmer today than the warmest periods of that 11,000-year time frame, even counting for uncertainties, Shuman says.

"In the absence of people, the trend would have been cooling," Shuman says. "It does show that what has happened in the last 30 years—a warming trend—puts us outside of all but the most extreme single years every 500 years since the Ice Age. The last 10 years have, on average, been as warm as a normal one year in 500 warm spell."

In prior climate change studies, long-term cooling has been difficult to reconcile with known global controls that would have forced warming and climate models that consistently simulate long-term warming. In those studies, marine and coastal temperature records were used. However, certain areas in the oceans could be unusually warm and skew the overall long-term average temperature results of some of those prior studies, Shuman says.

"These results help resolve a divergence in climate trends of the past 2,000 years recorded in marine sediments of the North Atlantic Ocean, compared with those recorded in fossil pollen from the continents of North America and Europe," says Jonathan Wynn, program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences, which co-funded a portion of the research with NSF's Division of Environmental Biology. "These new findings help us understand how the global climate system works over scales of decades to millennia and give us a new perspective from the distant past on recent and future climate changes."

Explore further: Report: Can't blame El Nino as global temps spike in March (Update)

More information: Jeremiah Marsicek et al, Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/nature25464

Related Stories

1,800 years of global ocean cooling halted by global warming

August 17, 2015

Prior to the advent of human-caused global warming in the 19th century, the surface layer of Earth's oceans had undergone 1,800 years of a steady cooling trend, according to a new study. During the latter half of this cooling ...

History shows more big wildfires likely as climate warms

October 5, 2015

The history of wildfires over the past 2,000 years in a northern Colorado mountain range indicates that large fires will continue to increase as a result of a warming climate, according to new study led by a University of ...

Recommended for you

Echo chambers persist in climate politics, research shows

September 19, 2018

New research from the University of Maryland (UMD) finds that contentious climate politics continue to be influenced by the diffusion of scientific information inside "echo chambers"—social network structures in which individuals ...

66 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

grandpa
1.2 / 5 (22) Jan 31, 2018
The last million years have been colder than the 65 million years before that. The earth has been turning into a giant ice ball. Thank God for humans who have been fixing that problem with carbon dioxide emissions. https://upload.wi...ange.png
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (20) Jan 31, 2018
The last million years have been colder than the 65 million years before that.
@idiot geriatric denier

but if you count the past 4.5 billion years compare it to the previous 9 billion years or so, you will see that it's insanely hot, especially during the formative years

is it easy for you to choose to overlook reality when you have an idiotic random web-fact that is irrelevant feeding your delusion?

just wonderin'
MR166
1 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2018
What a meaningless paper. The glaciers just started melting 11,700 years ago and we had another Little Ice Age during that period. Ice ages represent war, famine and plague. Be Careful what you wish for because this coming solar minimum could start another one.
leetennant
5 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2018
What a meaningless paper. The glaciers just started melting 11,700 years ago and we had another Little Ice Age during that period. Ice ages represent war, famine and plague. Be Careful what you wish for because this coming solar minimum could start another one.


Yeah that 0.1 of a degree is going to make a HUGE f'ing difference when humans have increased temperatures more than 1.
Turgent
1 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2018
"Our temperature estimates and the NCAR simulations were within one-quarter of one degree Fahrenheit, on average, " by itself this doesn't mean much. ¼ of 1 degree F or 1/8 of 1 degree C???

From the abstract is "climate model Community Climate System Model 3 (CCSM3)". Wonder how models 1, 2, 3,... would track?

Before CERN announced the Higgs Boson they went to a confidence level of 6 sigma or 99.9999998%. It wound be neat if this stuff could be rigorously tested.

Doesn't provide much warm and fuzzy.
aksdad
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2018
And how does it compare to the high-resolution record of the previous interglacial warm period which peaked about 125,000 years go? That's what really matters.

We are in an interglacial warm period. Previous ones have lasted from 10,000 to 30,000 years followed by around 90,000 years of cold. We haven't the slightest idea what to expect in terms of brief periods of relatively rapid warming or cooling during this period because there is no high-resolution record from the previous interglacial to compare to.

Claims of "unprecedented in the last 11,000 years" tell us nothing useful. The previous glacial period (ice age) began to end about 11,000 years ago so we would naturally expect warming. Which is a whole lot better than mile-thick glaciers covering most of North America and Northern Europe.

Also, the prehistoric temperature proxies aren't accurate enough to be able to say that the most recent decade is 0.5 F above any prehistoric temperatures.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2018
Claims of "unprecedented in the last 11,000 years" tell us nothing useful
They tell aksdad nothing usefull - but that is because aksdad is not interested in science - just interested in unsupported rubbish. If you look at a temperature graph of the past 10,000 years of so -
https://kottke.or...00-years

You see that the temperature forms a hump. Temps started dropping around 4 thousand years ago - and then began spiking up around 250 years ago. Deniers cannot explain the cause of the sudden reversal. There is no other explanation - than the green house effect. This is why we see so much obfuscation - and so little actual facts from deniers.

MR166
1 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2018
The graph at the begining of the link shows the temps of the greenland ice sheet for the last 11K years.

https://www.iceag...d-video/
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2018
ask-an-idiot says
And how does it compare to the high-resolution record of the previous interglacial warm period which peaked about 125,000 years go?

Also, the prehistoric temperature proxies aren't accurate enough to be able to say that the most recent decade is 0.5 F above any prehistoric temperatures
ROTFLMFAO

when you're against the science, and every study out there proves you wrong, simply state directly contradictory claims in the same breath and surely it must be true!

LMFAO

high resolution prehistoric temperatures that are just not accurate!

LOLOL

...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is one more demonstration of the idiocy of the denier movement
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2018
The graph at the begining of the link shows the temps of the greenland ice sheet for the last 11K years.

https://www.iceag...d-video/
@mr
the electric universe has a sh*tload of video's "proving" the sun is an electric spark... or iron, or some sh*t like that

do you believe them too?

what about the flat-earthers?

or the moon hoax conspiracists idiots?

so long as you're willing to get your "science" from random idiots on the interwebz, and you're willing to accept it as legit simply because they have a youtube video that speaks to your delusion, then you will always be no better than cantdrive, zeph, rc or any of the other idiot cranks

this is why no one wants to actually discuss anything with you - because you routinely ignore valid science for stupidity like the above

worse still - you completely forget everything once you've seen another video from the idiot deniers making money off of you
yep
1 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2018
Captain Stupid if you read science history you would now math has failed before as empirical evidence. To link those three topics together is disingenuous. Stick to what is relevant not your bias on a false priori.
http://worldnpa.o...6014.pdf
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2018
if you read science history you would now math has failed before as empirical evidence
@idiot yep
and if you would read the dictionary you would learn what empirical evidence means

more to the point: linking a known debunked pseudoscience belief published in a philosophy magazine is in no way indicative of your comprehension of the word empirical evidence

lastly, your inclusion of irrelevant idiotic pseudoscience is plainly demonstrative of my point above to mr

just because you want to believe in something doesn't mean it is true, factual or even based upon evidence

PS - empirical evidence supports the modern fusion model of a star, but yet you make an argument about empirical evidence and then link pseudoscience?
That is called delusional fanaticism and you just demonstrated why the lack of knowledge of scientific basics and it's history is causing society to turn into idiots
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2018
Aaaa Antigoracle trying out some more of his newer socks, well so far we having loads of fun, be-stupifying his hilarious comments...

Antigoracle Grandpa, you need good eyes to see through those thick glasses (coke bottles) unfortunately for you, the science you do read comes out greek, and you intepret it as baboon chatter as evident by your baboon babble here.

Good old antigoracle turDgent and his other usual sock askdaddy in a head to head mumbling race to produce the most sensless comments while forgetting to try and understand the word science itself in the process... Entertainment for the masses keeps getting better :D
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
Perhaps a little more detail might help show the stupidity of this paper.

https://junkscien...809d.pdf
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2018
"Our global temperature reconstruction for the past 1500 years is indistinguishable
within uncertainty from the Mann et al. reconstruction" That's absolutely fabulous. This doesn't mean much if the uncertainty isn't tight. Polish that turd.
rrwillsj
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
What I find most annoying about Climate Change Deniers besides their innate corrupt hypocrisy.

Is their clinging to bits and pieces of real scientific data showing scales of natural phenomena. Then the shills claims that graph as the final word. No new data is acceptable because the Carbon Industry has already made their little minds up for them. Ka-ching!

Climate Change means that along the Earth's Temperate Zones, when it is usually warm, it is going to get hotter. When it is usually cool, it is going to get colder. And the compressed periods of changes will make for some brutally violent weather.

In the Equatorial Zones it's going to be like living in a blast furnace.

And we'll have to invent a new designation for the Arctic Regions when they melt off.

Here is proof that humans are as stupid as the dinosaurs. Dying rich, surrounded with all your fabulous toys and luxuries? Is still dying!
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2018
Why don't these models and data sets converge? Is this a challenge to religion or the means to support religion? They are two different things! Sort out the science and bias.

There is a spectrum between Algore and solid science.
691Boat
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2018
Perhaps a little more detail might help show the stupidity of this paper.

https://junkscien...809d.pdf

@MR:
That's a pretty font they used in that link. I bet middle schoolers use it in a lot of their papers too.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2018
" I bet middle schoolers use it in a lot of their papers too."

I would not know 691 but when you get that far you will find out.
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
" I bet middle schoolers use it in a lot of their papers too."

I would not know 691 but when you get that far you will find out.


Apparently you are OK with someone with less than a middle school education having a better understanding of science and statistics than you? Well done!
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2018
The complete and utter bullshit of the AGW Cult and their Pathological "science".
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
"Apparently you are OK with someone with less than a middle school education having a better understanding of science and statistics than you? Well done!"

691 your understanding of this climate hoax is the best that we can expect from someone who has been brainwashed by the educational system starting with Pre-K.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
Turgent
Why don't these models and data sets converge?
I think you are asking how well the models are doing in terms of representing the actual temperature data. If that is correct - then the answer is that they are doing a good job - https://www.carbo...-warming

And why do you bring up Al Gore? Gore is not a scientist - and normally when I see someone want to pull a politician into the debate - it tells me that person is politically motivated - and really just pretending to know anything at all about the science. Just a troll.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2018
I find it suspicious when someone says "hotter than MOST of the last 11k years..."
What about those years when it wasn't?
When were they? How many were there?
And so on...
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
@Onions

Did you miss the point, big time.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
@691BOAT

Are you a Memphis alumni?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2018
Turgent
Did you miss the point, big time
I don't know - but I was asking a clarification question. Why don't answer - instead of trying to be all cryptic and shit?
yep
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2018
Capitain Stupid. "Before all, be it observed, that proper mathematical propositions are always judgements a priori, and not empirical, because they carry along with them the conception of necessity, which cannot be given by experience. If this be demurred to, it matters not; I will then limit my assertion to pure mathematics, the very conception of which implies that it consists of knowledge altogether non-empirical and a priori." Kant
I wager he is a hell of a lot smarter then a stupid twat like you.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2018
PS - empirical evidence supports the modern fusion model of a star, but yet you make an argument about empirical evidence and then link pseudoscience?
That is called delusional fanaticism and you just demonstrated why the lack of knowledge of scientific basics and it's history is causing society to turn into idiots

Captain Stupid twat, interesting that the electric universe plasmoid sun theory is having better success at achieving fusion with dense focused plasma devices.
http://aip.scitat....4989859
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience acolyte yep
Kant
philosophy isn't science
I wager he is a hell of a lot smarter then a stupid twat like you
and my grandkids are demonstrably smarter than you as at least they can reply topically: your argument was anecdotal support of pseudoscience because "science history"
LOL
interesting that the electric universe plasmoid sun theory
pseudoscience isn't science by definition, you idiot
there is no eu science theory anywhere
is having better success at achieving fusion
surely you can demonstrate this with links and references?
LMFAO

yeah - I didn't think so

just because electrical engineers and plasma physicists are working on a project doesn't mean it's an eu project (see also: PPPL.gov or any other plasma physics lab)

your delusion is strong - but reality will eventually win out over the stupid
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2018
@691BOAT

Are you a Memphis alumni?


Yes I am. '01-'06 MM1(SS) M-div
Liebnitz434
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
@691BOAT

Cool, thanks for your service.
Turgent
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
@691BOAT

Likewise.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2018
@Onions,

The last time I made great effort to share with you how the universe is not deterministic (macro quantum effects and more) you responded with "I BELIEVE that we live in a deterministic universe" or something like that. The operative word "BELIEVE" rather than understand, with argument, the opposite to be true. Rational discourse and argument is impossible with you zealots so I won't waste others time.
Check out the double pendulum and get back to us regarding the convergence aspect of simulations of complex systems.

There is a spectrum between Algore and solid science.

"And why do you bring up Al Gore?" To provoke your thought on the validity of those arguing AGW. Wasn't that self-evident?

Don't get snotty.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2018
@691BOAT

Me too, Thanks!
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
Electric Boat-folk: We need you guys, but that life was not for me. I took myself off flight status because our aircraft had no windows. I like to look out.
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2018
Electric Boat-folk: We need you guys, but that life was not for me. I took myself off flight status because our aircraft had no windows. I like to look out.


Well, considering there are more planes in the water than submarines in the sky, I had a better chance of surviving anyways.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2018
We lost 22 of us technical non-combatants. We were unarmed.

BTW, as a comm tech in 1968, I listened to us lose the Scorpion in real time. I think the Navy is still lying about it..
691Boat
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2018
BTW, as a comm tech in 1968, I listened to us lose the Scorpion in real time. I think the Navy is still lying about it..


I've read your account. Submarines can't operate that way in any circumstance, therefore your story is BS. If boats could communicate how you claim, why would you THINK the navy is lying? seems you would KNOW the navy is lying.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2018
You did not read the entire account, and I am not lying. If you do not want to believe it, that is your problem. At the time, I was only a few feet from the guy we brought with us to modify the Sonobuoys. My account was requested by and sent to the Naval Historical Center in the Navy Yard.

It was very upsetting to me at the time and led to loud protestations of what we were doing. You are not going to tell. me what I heard and did.

The Scrapiron, as it was called at the time, went down because of a poor refitting, and those 99 folk died because of it, and no Navy folk had the GUTS to admit it.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2018
gkam, you give a very convincing rational for why ex-military senior command officers and government regulatory administrators, should be forbidden from accepting gratuities and executive positions in the corporate bureaucracies of the military-industrial complex subsidized by the taxpayers.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
https://wattsupwi...impacts/

Well here is another paper that calls this one pure BS.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2018
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/02/study-early-humans-witnessed-global-cooling-warming-and-massive-fires-from-comet-debris-impacts/

Well here is another paper that calls this one pure BS.


Might pay to read these before putting too much stock in that comet hypothesis:

https://psmag.com...th-31180

http://www2.nau.e.../135.pdf
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2018
OK guys I retract my last post. It seems that the graph was not part of the paper and thus is from an unknown source.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2018
OK guys I retract my last post. It seems that the graph was not part of the paper and thus is from an unknown source.


If you're talking about the graph on the WUWT site that you linked, then that looks accurate enough.
See here:
https://en.wikipe..._optimum

The mid-Holocene climatic optimum was basically a northern hemisphere effect.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2018
Turgent
I BELIEVE that we live in a deterministic universe
Being that I don't believe the universe is deterministic - being that I am a dyed in the wool atheist - your memory serves you wrong - and you are making shit up.

The point I was asking for clarification on - and I was very clear about - and I put your comment in quotes
Why don't these models and data sets converge?
I was not sure if I understood your point - and was asking for clarification. If you meant that the models and reality should agree - I showed you that they do. Why don't you learn to communicate - instead of being all obtuse?
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
Dear Great Thick One,

I told you to check out the double pendulum so I wouldn't have to start at 1+1 equals addle headed. This is the 2nd time I am telling you the same thing.

Why don't these models and data sets converge?

1. They are chaotic complex systems or stated another way nonlinear dynamical system. A chaotic system has a strange attractor, around which the system oscillates forever, never repeating itself or settling into a steady state of behavior. To define otherwise is insanity.
2. Initial conditions never can be exactly determined.
3. All variables cannot be determined.
4. Some models define variables as independent when it is unknown if they are. Dependent variables mess everything up.

To define matching simulations by .0004 degrees is to reduce chaos to a known set of parameters and their behavior. Man is not God.

Continued=>
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
To further understand explore:

Butterfly effect

Quantum limit of a bat's sonar.

Independent versus dependent variables

My favorite, the Lorenz system

The models and simulations are trying to fit chaotic functions to one which behaves within a band defined by a statistical confidence level. There is a bit of forcing the data to fit the model. That wouldn't necessarily be all bad if consideration of the true nature of the chaotic system was not being pushed out!

That is the conversion of nonlinear to linear.

Such an unbelievably small box in which tiny minds work.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
Yeah-that's the problem Captain stupid you don't think. Science based on assumptions are worthless. Personal feelings in the scientific establishment have held science back on numerous occasions. The fact that you think math Is empirical shows what a fool you are. Garbage in garbage out.
The post you dismiss with your typical arrogance showed the highest ion exchange in any fusion experiment in the world it is based in the same plasma science of the Electric universe. The sun as a Plasmoid just like the center of our galaxy. No black hole, no Big Bang, no dark matter needed
yep
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
Alright Captain stupid here is some science plus a little history for you.
http://vixra.org/...04v1.pdf
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2018
Alright Captain stupid here is some science plus a little history for you.
http://vixra.org/...04v1.pdf


Lol. An EU crank on Vixra! That'll convince everyone. Tell us, if we can detect these electrons at the heliopause with 1960s/70s technology, why can't we detect the incoming current to power the idiotically unscientific electric sun lunacy, as proposed by Scott, at closer heliocentric distances? Hint: because they aren't there.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2018
The sun as a Plasmoid just like the center of our galaxy. No black hole, no Big Bang, no dark matter needed


I'd lay off the Kool-Aid, if I were you. Plasmoid? Dear God. Tell me, what is the mass of this unobservable plasmoid at the centre of the galaxy? Just get the EU geniuses to do what others have done, and calculate it from the orbits of the stars around it.

greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2018
Turgent
Why don't these models and data sets converge?
I don't know Turgent - I guess you will have to go on to an advanced theoretical physics board to have that discussion. I just read an article "A numerical analysis of chaos in the double pendulum" And see - it was way above me. So it seems to me that you are just obfuscating. It is a classic pattern with deniers. What I can tell you - as I already showed you - is that the climate models are doing a good job of representing the climate system. The models and reality correlate. So in lay persons terms - what's your point? Fuck your complex theoretical obfuscation - what's your point?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
@idiot eu pseudoscience cult acolyte yep
Science based on assumptions are worthless
1- that isn't science by definition
2- that is the foundation of the idiocy of the eu
thank you for admitting your eu crap is worthless
The fact that you think math Is empirical shows what a fool you are
strawman and delusional argument from idiocy
where did I ever admit any such thing?
LOL

literacy problems seem to be a problem found a lot in your cult... try this link: http://www.readingbear.org/

The post you dismiss
again with the literacy problem?
LOL
or did you miss this part of my post:
just because electrical engineers and plasma physicists are working on a project doesn't mean it's an eu project (see also: PPPL.gov or any other plasma physics lab)
perhaps you should learn to read before commenting further?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2018
@idiot eu pseudoscience cult acolyte yep cont'd
it is based in the same plasma science of the Electric universe
no, it isn't

for starters, it is based on plasma physics.
period
full stop

secondly, there is absolutely no eu science
period
full stop

it is all speculative idiocy from certain pseudoscience idiots who want to make a buck off of idiots like you

just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they know WTF they're talking about: Einstein was religious, so does that validate a deity in any way?
nope

this applies to your idiot eu cult as well
just because someone is an engineer doesn't mean they know jack sh*t about astrophysicists - hell, they don't even learn about half the stuff astro's do, regardless of the similarities in plasma physics

the point being: just because a plasma physics lab does something that *you* think is related to your idiot eu cult doesn't mean it is related
nor does it mean it's eu bullsh*t

PS- vixra = pseudoscience
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
@Onionhead

what's your point?


You're a potty mouthed parrot and waste of time. You're not even interested in putting together fundamental concepts. The double pendulum doesn't require you read a numerical analysis, what a waste of time. Just watch an illustration of it or the water wheel of increasing flow.

First understand it before you criticize it. It isn't that hard, a nitwit can understand.

If it is too hard for your little Luddite mind then shut up. Previously, you did deny the world was not deterministic. I think you are here to foster useless argument. Please press "Ignore user" Repeat please press "Ignore user"

We agreed to keep it civil. Guess you memory doesn't work either.

Ficken geistig gestört Schwachkopf.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2018
''a nitwit can understand. '' thats true ! i can understand it , read the book by James Gleick
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
We agreed to keep it civil. Guess you memory doesn't work either
I remember that - but then you said this
Dear Great Thick One
Which is not civil - so I follow suit.

Now - you said this
Why don't these models and data sets converge?
And I am not sure what you are asking - so I asked for clarification. Seems you are good at obfuscating - but not able to put a simple sentence together to actually explain what point you are making. Good at obfuscating - but not so good at basic communication.

Sorry the word fuck bothers you so much - seems maybe you are a mess of contradictions.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
Turgent
Previously, you did deny the world was not deterministic


I would never assert that the world was deterministic - like I say - I am a dyed in the wool atheist - I spend half my life arguing with religious wing nuts about the universe not being deterministic. One of the strongest arguments against the existence of god - is the cruel nature of the natural world. You know - lions eating Bambi and shit. No all powerful/all loving god would create such a sick world.

Why don't you prove it if you assert that is what I said?
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
@Onionhead

You're an argumentative waste. What is the language of science? Answer: Math.
See https://arxiv.org...611.pdf. It is a paper with the math! It is not trivial math but a peer (not pal) can provide critical analysis and feedback. That's called validating a hypothesis among peers. Einstein and Hawking did it. Look at this it is not based on statistics.

Irrer mit Charakter-Syndrom
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
sorry for the downrate GreenO - page jumped

.

It is a paper with the math! It is not trivial math but a peer (not pal) can provide critical analysis and feedback. That's called validating a hypothesis among peers
@turdgent troll
1- peer review isn't validation, nor is it anything other than something like a spell check for scientists to ensure blatant mistakes aren't made (you know, like writing the wrong equation)

2- any study that is peer reviewed is just a study that has passed that process. it is more powerful than anecdote, belief or random opinion, but it's not a scientific fact until it's validated

3- there are levels of evidence that you apparently don't know jack sh*t about - perhaps you should learn about them?

we tried to teach you this lesson when you were using your other socks, but you ignored it

that, by definition, makes you an "argumentative waste", and future Darwin award winner

Lerne zu lesen, du Blödmann
Die Wissenschaft funktioniert.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2018
@Snoosebaum

For the sake of trivial. It is said the first glimpse of fractals came about as Gaston Maurice Julia lay in a hospital bed. Seriously wounded in WWI, and bored out of his gourd, he did the iterations in his head. Hence Julia Set.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2018
The Lorenz's Model of Global Atmospheric Circulation is pretty neat. For those who might be interested download the CDF player at http://demonstrat...yer.html and the demonstration at http://demonstrat...ulation/

There is some other climate related stuff at

http://demonstrat...d=recent

Or just watch the quick runs.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
Turgent
You're an argumentative waste
Probably - although you remind of Noumenon - screaming "I don't have time to argue with the internet," - while arguing with the internet.

It seems pretty straight forward to me. You said this
Why don't these models and data sets converge?
Now I was not clear which models, and which data sets you were referring to - and thus not sure what your point was. I suspected that you were basically saying that the climate models - were not accurately representing the real climate. As I say - was not really clear - so I asked a question of clarification
I think you are asking how well the models are doing in terms of representing the actual temperature data. If that is correct - then the answer is that they are doing a good job
And you never clarified for us - but went into all kinds of obfuscation about stuff like the double pendulum - but never explaining your original intent. I think it is obfuscation....
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
Onions = Waste
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2018
Since we're on the subject... The EU website adverting their sale of spanking new Orgone Boxes guarantees to produce fornication and unlawful carnal knowledge.

It's got to the truth cause all the satisfied customer reviews posted to the EU board.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.