[Fwd: Abrupt Climate Change]

[Roger Bagula]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html
"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth with up to 10
ice ages forcing early settlers into exile, leaving the land uninhabited
for periods of up to 110,000 years, researchers have found.
A study — led by the Natural History Museum — of 700,000 years of human
attempts to settle in Britain found that the Gulf Stream, which keeps the
British Isles warm, kept collapsing, plunging them into Arctic cold. The
lurches from temperate to freezing sometimes took as little as 10 years,
says Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins in the museum’s
paleontology department, in a new book, Homo Britannicus, to be published
in October. "
This isn't all new, but it is certainly a bit scary. 10 years?!!
Doug
-- Doug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at
http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
Abrupt Climate Change
Peter Schwartz, Doug Randall
February 2004

"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable—to push the
boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better
understand the potential implications on United States national security.

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted
additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario
with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution
that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,
they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a
few regions, rather than globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the
event may be considerably smaller.

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most
likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national
security in ways that should be considered immediately."

This public report, prepared by GBN for the Department of Defense, has
been the subject of several news stories. Fortune magazine excerpted the
report in its Feb. 9, 2004, issue ("The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare,"
by David Stipp). The actual report, titled "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," was
written by Peter Schwartz (GBN chairman) and Doug Randall (co-head of
GBN's consulting practice) and is attached here in its PDF version.
Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret,
suppressed, or predictive.



Abrupt Climate Change (PDF: 915 KB)

[patricia]

forwarded to alt.global-warming

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:02:50 GMT, Roger Bagula

Post by Roger Bagula

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html
"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth with up to 10
ice ages forcing early settlers into exile, leaving the land uninhabited
for periods of up to 110,000 years, researchers have found.
A study — led by the Natural History Museum — of 700,000 years of human
attempts to settle in Britain found that the Gulf Stream, which keeps the
British Isles warm, kept collapsing, plunging them into Arctic cold. The
lurches from temperate to freezing sometimes took as little as 10 years,
says Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins in the museum’s
paleontology department, in a new book, Homo Britannicus, to be published
in October. "
This isn't all new, but it is certainly a bit scary. 10 years?!!
Doug
-- Doug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at
http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
Abrupt Climate Change
Peter Schwartz, Doug Randall
February 2004
"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable—to push the
boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better
understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted
additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario
with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution
that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,
they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a
few regions, rather than globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the
event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most
likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national
security in ways that should be considered immediately."
This public report, prepared by GBN for the Department of Defense, has
been the subject of several news stories. Fortune magazine excerpted the
report in its Feb. 9, 2004, issue ("The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare,"
by David Stipp). The actual report, titled "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," was
written by Peter Schwartz (GBN chairman) and Doug Randall (co-head of
GBN's consulting practice) and is attached here in its PDF version.
Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret,
suppressed, or predictive.
Abrupt Climate Change (PDF: 915 KB)

[Roger Dewhurst]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html
"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth with up to 10
ice ages forcing early settlers into exile, leaving the land uninhabited
for periods of up to 110,000 years, researchers have found.
A study - led by the Natural History Museum - of 700,000 years of human
attempts to settle in Britain found that the Gulf Stream, which keeps the
British Isles warm, kept collapsing, plunging them into Arctic cold. The
lurches from temperate to freezing sometimes took as little as 10 years,
says Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins in the museum's
paleontology department, in a new book, Homo Britannicus, to be published
in October. "

It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned about.

R

[Roger Coppock]

Post by Roger Dewhurst
It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned about.

You just haven't picked up the whole story Mr. Dewhurst.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming,
though slow, can trigger abrupt climate change.

--- Slowly melt the ice of Greenland, change the salinity and
density of, water in ocean currents, quickly moving the ocean
currents, thus rapidly changing the climate.

--- Slowly melt the polar ice caps expose methane clathrates,
sending a rush of methane into the atmosphere, creating a
powerful greenhouse effect, thus rapidly changing the climate.

IF YOU DON'T WANT THE GUN TO SHOOT, THEN
DON'T PULL THE TRIGGER.

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst
It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned about.

You just haven't picked up the whole story Mr. Dewhurst.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming,
though slow, can trigger abrupt climate change.

Something else has triggered abrupt climate change in the past, many times.
What was it Coppock?

R

[Roger Coppock]

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst
It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned

about.

Post by Roger Coppock
You just haven't picked up the whole story Mr. Dewhurst.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming,
though slow, can trigger abrupt climate change.

Something else has triggered abrupt climate change in the past, many times.
What was it Coppock?

Many things, anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic, can trigger
sudden climate change. You'll have to give a specific event
of past climate, "the past" is a little broad and nonspecific, no?

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst
It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned

about.

Post by Roger Coppock
You just haven't picked up the whole story Mr. Dewhurst.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming,
though slow, can trigger abrupt climate change.

Something else has triggered abrupt climate change in the past, many times.
What was it Coppock?

Many things, anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic, can trigger
sudden climate change. You'll have to give a specific event
of past climate, "the past" is a little broad and nonspecific, no?

OK. Explain the last two glacial events then.

R

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 01:00:35 +1200, "Roger Dewhurst"

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst
It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned

about.

Post by Roger Coppock
You just haven't picked up the whole story Mr. Dewhurst.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming,
though slow, can trigger abrupt climate change.

Something else has triggered abrupt climate change in the past, many

times.

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst
What was it Coppock?

Many things, anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic, can trigger
sudden climate change. You'll have to give a specific event
of past climate, "the past" is a little broad and nonspecific, no?

OK. Explain the last two glacial events then.

Anyone who claims to be able to explain the last two glacial events
has got to be kidding. While we know they occurred we don't really
know why. There are various hypothosese but no testable theories as
yet. Such explanations as there are encompass ideas such as orbital
cycles in the solar system, orbital cycles in the galaxy, galactic
dust clouds, cometary impacts, vulcanism, solar fluctuations, cosmic
ray flux etc etc



Eric Stevens

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by Eric Stevens
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 01:00:35 +1200, "Roger Dewhurst"

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst
It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned

about.

Post by Roger Coppock
You just haven't picked up the whole story Mr. Dewhurst.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming,
though slow, can trigger abrupt climate change.

Something else has triggered abrupt climate change in the past, many

times.

Post by Roger Coppock

Post by Roger Dewhurst
What was it Coppock?

Many things, anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic, can trigger
sudden climate change. You'll have to give a specific event
of past climate, "the past" is a little broad and nonspecific, no?

OK. Explain the last two glacial events then.

Anyone who claims to be able to explain the last two glacial events
has got to be kidding. While we know they occurred we don't really
know why. There are various hypothosese but no testable theories as
yet. Such explanations as there are encompass ideas such as orbital
cycles in the solar system, orbital cycles in the galaxy, galactic
dust clouds, cometary impacts, vulcanism, solar fluctuations, cosmic
ray flux etc etc

Exactly. Until Coppock and his ilk can account for the climatic changes of
the Pleistocene he is going going to have some trouble convincing any but
the gullible and the AGW scientologists that a mere 100 years of
instrumental record is sufficient to explain the current state of the
climate.

R

[KANGAROOISTAN]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html
"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth with up to

10

ice ages forcing early settlers into exile, leaving the land uninhabited
for periods of up to 110,000 years, researchers have found.
A study - led by the Natural History Museum - of 700,000 years of human
attempts to settle in Britain found that the Gulf Stream, which keeps

the

British Isles warm, kept collapsing, plunging them into Arctic cold. The
lurches from temperate to freezing sometimes took as little as 10 years,
says Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins in the museum's
paleontology department, in a new book, Homo Britannicus, to be

published

in October. "

It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned about.
R

Indeed it seems to me many fail to understand the way ice packs /
sheets collapse, I liken it to the defrosting of old style fridges for
those a bit older who used to let ice build up till it was impossible
to let it go any longer , then switch off the fridge and leave the dppr
open and wait till it defrosted.

Many wont understand this example , if you have not seen it , but
nothing happens for say one hour, then a few drips the next hour then
small bits of ice start dropping, THEN great slabs of ice crash all
over the floor , not melted but not able to resist the forces of
gravity, the increase in ice loss rise VERY VERY RAPIDLY ONCE IT
STARTS

I live in Australia , and look south and see an ice mass twice the size
of Australia and its AV 10,000 FEET thick / high

ITS MELTING AS WE SPEAK

bits are breaking off and falling into the sea

the rate of melt and break up is INCREASING

I look at the world and ask why are humans in the norther hemisphere so
much more advanced than humans in the south

The degree of human achievement should have been equally evolved if all
things were equal, and as there is evidence of periodic ice ages and
sealevel rise several times over many millenia I ask if its possible
that mass extinction of humans has occured several times in sth
countrys STH AUSTRALIA STH AFRICA SRH AMERICA are all similar in the
level or lack of human activity until recent centuries

I live in Australia and have seen much evidence of sea levels hundreds
of feet higher than at present, and the mass extinctions as late as
10,000 yrs ago approx coincides with the end of the last ice age
approx

If an ice sheet 10,000 feet high twice the size of Australia slid into
the sea off antarctica , perhaps as a result of an earth quake ?? there
would be a tsunami perhaps 10,000 feet high hit southern continents and
especially southern Australoia about 10,000 years ago

This theory MATCHES much of my observations, loss of animals and
changes in sea levels and mass burials of fossils from land and sea a
thousand kms inland , the creation of vast treeless plains swept of all
trees

and the destruction of humans in all southern continents , leaving the
northern continent largely intact

the land and the people and the whole thing holds together if several
iceage type tsunami destruction events are laid on top of things as we
examine the "possibilities " of anothe ice melt,

I my self am convinced there will be RAPID sealevel rise based on my
understanding of ice break up

the example you quote and stopping of gulf stream all " fit "

If all ice melts OR slides into the sea ,, 67 or up to 80 by some
reports sea level rise will happen

Many people want desperately to stop any hint of rapid or large
sealevel rise as it will bankrupt the entire globe , when it happens,
many with a financial risk will be" blocked "from even considering the
possibility

I have held my views for some years , and now am convinced , we will se
very very rapid changes , BUT its amazing to see how different people
view this

Those with beach front property ALL LAUGH IT OFF

Those who live in the mountains ALL BELIEVE IT

Take note among your friends , peoples financial exposure influences
their ability to think , its probable simply that it takes much reading
and some field trips to confirm for yourself , and if you get
uncomfortable with what you see , its normal to stop reading or looking
at things that make you feel uneasy, but climate change will happen
regardless of our wishes , but we could plan and be prepared ,even
survive , as in my opinion most people living below the equator will be
hit with tsunamis 1000 feet high almost any day , if an earth quake and
melt water start the southern ice sheets moving down into the sea

Most dont care as they are too busy watching football replays

Life goes on , time only tells , but the evidence is mounting and as a
grandfather IT IS MY JOB TO WATCH OUT FOR MY GRANDCHILDRENS FUTURE AND
I KNOW MANY EXPERTS ARNT

[prd]

Post by KANGAROOISTAN

Post by Roger Dewhurst

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html
"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth
with up to .....

It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more
concerned about.

ITS MELTING AS WE SPEAK

Britian is Melting? Damn and I didn't see that on the BBC World News,
some guy on ABC said London is going to sink when greenland ice
suddenly decides to hop into the thames estuary. Wouldn't surprise
given all the magic stuff (little green fairies and the like) the
viking found in Greenland.

[BTW, what is it with Aussies and the Use of ALLCAPS, you guys
got defective keyboards or something]

[patricia]

(alt.usenet.kooks removed)

Post by prd

Post by KANGAROOISTAN

Post by Roger Dewhurst

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html
"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth
with up to .....

It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more
concerned about.

ITS MELTING AS WE SPEAK

Britian is Melting? Damn and I didn't see that on the BBC World News,
some guy on ABC said London is going to sink when greenland ice
suddenly decides to hop into the thames estuary. Wouldn't surprise
given all the magic stuff (little green fairies and the like) the
viking found in Greenland.

How can you maliciously snip the message to make it look as if the
poster was referring to Britain?

He wrote:

"I live in Australia , and look south and see an ice mass twice the
size of Australia and its AV 10,000 FEET thick / high "

So he was obviously referring to Antarctica, not Britain (which is not
south of Australia).

Only a dopey Yank could do that. It's not even funny.

Post by prd
[BTW, what is it with Aussies and the Use of ALLCAPS, you guys
got defective keyboards or something]

Not all of us.

trish

[JTEM]

Post by patricia
How can you maliciously snip the message to make
it look as if the poster was referring to Britain?

Not to get technical (the person you were responding
to obviously was trying to be clever), but that was
the context.

Your post included a quote that dealt exclusively with
Britain.

A "Roger Dewhurst" requoted the text in it's entirety,
adding a single line of comment.

"KANGAROOISTAN" quoted the "Dewhurst" post in
it's entirety, adding his comments below.

What was he commenting on? The story regarding
climate changes in Britain.

[Peter Alaca]

JTEM wrote: news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Please remove sci.archaeology

[patricia]

Post by JTEM

Post by patricia
How can you maliciously snip the message to make
it look as if the poster was referring to Britain?

Not to get technical (the person you were responding
to obviously was trying to be clever), but that was
the context.
Your post included a quote that dealt exclusively with
Britain.
A "Roger Dewhurst" requoted the text in it's entirety,
adding a single line of comment.
"KANGAROOISTAN" quoted the "Dewhurst" post in
it's entirety, adding his comments below.
What was he commenting on? The story regarding
climate changes in Britain.

I still think prd's behaviour was dopey.

At least you seem sensible.

trish

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:27:03 +0200, patricia

Post by patricia

Post by JTEM

Post by patricia
How can you maliciously snip the message to make
it look as if the poster was referring to Britain?

Not to get technical (the person you were responding
to obviously was trying to be clever), but that was
the context.
Your post included a quote that dealt exclusively with
Britain.
A "Roger Dewhurst" requoted the text in it's entirety,
adding a single line of comment.
"KANGAROOISTAN" quoted the "Dewhurst" post in
it's entirety, adding his comments below.
What was he commenting on? The story regarding
climate changes in Britain.

I still think prd's behaviour was dopey.

It's not dopey. It's malicious.

Post by patricia
At least you seem sensible.
trish

Eric Stevens

[JTEM]

Post by patricia
I still think prd's behaviour was dopey.

I agree.

Post by patricia
At least you seem sensible.

Many would disagree with you.

[Peter Alaca]

Post by patricia
(alt.usenet.kooks removed)

Please also remove sci.archaeology

[KANGAROOISTAN]

Post by Peter Alaca

Post by patricia
(alt.usenet.kooks removed)

Please also remove sci.archaeology

WHY , ancient sealevels are important , as most human activity is at
the sea ports , its vital to understand this and a wider pool of
expertise is urgently needed , this will affect every body , and indeed
ancient peoples may have vital information in how we are to deal with
climate change , this is a emergency , all hands on deck , mate

[Matt Giwer]

Post by KANGAROOISTAN

Post by Peter Alaca

Post by patricia
(alt.usenet.kooks removed)

Please also remove sci.archaeology

WHY , ancient sealevels are important , as most human activity is at
the sea ports , its vital to understand this and a wider pool of
expertise is urgently needed , this will affect every body , and indeed
ancient peoples may have vital information in how we are to deal with
climate change , this is a emergency , all hands on deck , mate

Abrupt climate change does not yield abrupt sea level change. The increase or
decrease in a glacier is ratio of winter addition to summer melting. It can be
nothing else. Sea level change is going to be much slower than any climate change.

[Inger E]

NO NO NO - The Ice sheet isn't collapsing, it's returning slowly (!) to the
way it was between 870 AD and last century of Medieval Age.

Inger E

Post by KANGAROOISTAN

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html
"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth with up to

10

ice ages forcing early settlers into exile, leaving the land uninhabited
for periods of up to 110,000 years, researchers have found.
A study - led by the Natural History Museum - of 700,000 years of human
attempts to settle in Britain found that the Gulf Stream, which keeps

the

British Isles warm, kept collapsing, plunging them into Arctic cold. The
lurches from temperate to freezing sometimes took as little as 10 years,
says Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins in the museum's
paleontology department, in a new book, Homo Britannicus, to be

published

in October. "

It is this sort of climatic change we should be much more concerned about.
R

Indeed it seems to me many fail to understand the way ice packs /
sheets collapse, I liken it to the defrosting of old style fridges for
those a bit older who used to let ice build up till it was impossible
to let it go any longer , then switch off the fridge and leave the dppr
open and wait till it defrosted.
Many wont understand this example , if you have not seen it , but
nothing happens for say one hour, then a few drips the next hour then
small bits of ice start dropping, THEN great slabs of ice crash all
over the floor , not melted but not able to resist the forces of
gravity, the increase in ice loss rise VERY VERY RAPIDLY ONCE IT
STARTS
I live in Australia , and look south and see an ice mass twice the size
of Australia and its AV 10,000 FEET thick / high
ITS MELTING AS WE SPEAK
bits are breaking off and falling into the sea
the rate of melt and break up is INCREASING
I look at the world and ask why are humans in the norther hemisphere so
much more advanced than humans in the south
The degree of human achievement should have been equally evolved if all
things were equal, and as there is evidence of periodic ice ages and
sealevel rise several times over many millenia I ask if its possible
that mass extinction of humans has occured several times in sth
countrys STH AUSTRALIA STH AFRICA SRH AMERICA are all similar in the
level or lack of human activity until recent centuries
I live in Australia and have seen much evidence of sea levels hundreds
of feet higher than at present, and the mass extinctions as late as
10,000 yrs ago approx coincides with the end of the last ice age
approx
If an ice sheet 10,000 feet high twice the size of Australia slid into
the sea off antarctica , perhaps as a result of an earth quake ?? there
would be a tsunami perhaps 10,000 feet high hit southern continents and
especially southern Australoia about 10,000 years ago
This theory MATCHES much of my observations, loss of animals and
changes in sea levels and mass burials of fossils from land and sea a
thousand kms inland , the creation of vast treeless plains swept of all
trees
and the destruction of humans in all southern continents , leaving the
northern continent largely intact
the land and the people and the whole thing holds together if several
iceage type tsunami destruction events are laid on top of things as we
examine the "possibilities " of anothe ice melt,
I my self am convinced there will be RAPID sealevel rise based on my
understanding of ice break up
the example you quote and stopping of gulf stream all " fit "
If all ice melts OR slides into the sea ,, 67 or up to 80 by some
reports sea level rise will happen
Many people want desperately to stop any hint of rapid or large
sealevel rise as it will bankrupt the entire globe , when it happens,
many with a financial risk will be" blocked "from even considering the
possibility
I have held my views for some years , and now am convinced , we will se
very very rapid changes , BUT its amazing to see how different people
view this
Those with beach front property ALL LAUGH IT OFF
Those who live in the mountains ALL BELIEVE IT
Take note among your friends , peoples financial exposure influences
their ability to think , its probable simply that it takes much reading
and some field trips to confirm for yourself , and if you get
uncomfortable with what you see , its normal to stop reading or looking
at things that make you feel uneasy, but climate change will happen
regardless of our wishes , but we could plan and be prepared ,even
survive , as in my opinion most people living below the equator will be
hit with tsunamis 1000 feet high almost any day , if an earth quake and
melt water start the southern ice sheets moving down into the sea
Most dont care as they are too busy watching football replays
Life goes on , time only tells , but the evidence is mounting and as a
grandfather IT IS MY JOB TO WATCH OUT FOR MY GRANDCHILDRENS FUTURE AND
I KNOW MANY EXPERTS ARNT

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by Inger E
NO NO NO - The Ice sheet isn't collapsing, it's returning slowly (!) to the
way it was between 870 AD and last century of Medieval Age.
Inger E

I wish people could get this climatic change into perspective. We have had
glaciations and interglacials about every 100,000 years for nearly half of
the Pleistocene and possibly for all of it. In the last half million years
we have had times when there was 1000 metres or more of ice sitting on
Scotland! We have had interglacials when the British megafauna included
crocoldiles, elephants and hippopotami. Presumeably the tropical megafauna,
with Palaeolithic man, walked across the English Channel before the sea had
time to rise. This suggests that the climatic changes from glacial to
nearly tropical occurred in a very brief space of time, perhaps less than a
century. Ice core data shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane
levels were much higher than during the glacial episodes, though not as high
as at present. Did Palaeolithic man increase the green house gases? Of
course not.

R

[Tom McDonald]

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Inger E
NO NO NO - The Ice sheet isn't collapsing, it's returning slowly (!) to

the

Post by Inger E
way it was between 870 AD and last century of Medieval Age.
Inger E

I wish people could get this climatic change into perspective. We have had
glaciations and interglacials about every 100,000 years for nearly half of
the Pleistocene and possibly for all of it. In the last half million years
we have had times when there was 1000 metres or more of ice sitting on
Scotland! We have had interglacials when the British megafauna included
crocoldiles, elephants and hippopotami. Presumeably the tropical megafauna,
with Palaeolithic man, walked across the English Channel before the sea had
time to rise. This suggests that the climatic changes from glacial to
nearly tropical occurred in a very brief space of time, perhaps less than a
century. Ice core data shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane
levels were much higher than during the glacial episodes, though not as high
as at present. Did Palaeolithic man increase the green house gases? Of
course not.

No, but we are now. As far as I am concerned, the issue is not the
relative capacity of humans vs. nature in the climate change
particular. It is how anthropogenic climate alterations interact with
those of nature.

If what we humans are doing potentiates natural climate change, and
this results in either a catastrophic heating of the earth, and/or
triggers another glacial stadial, wouldn't it be a good thing for us to
have done the research to know? And to suggest what we might do to
ameliorate the negative effects?

OTOH, if the mature research shows that our activities are moderating
natural patterns that we find unpleasant, wouldn't *that* be good to
know?

[Roger Bagula]

Second World Skeptics Congress


http://www.csicop.org/si/9811/conference2.html


Experts Review Global Climate Threats, Energy-Saving Solutions

In Friday afternoon presentations, two experts, one from academia, the
other from business, forecast possible futures for Earth's climate.
*William Calvin*, a neurophysiologist at the University of Washington,
outlined the potential threat of what he calls the "The Great Climate
Flip-Flop," an abrupt cooling of Earth that could result in widespread
crop failure, significant landscape change, and genocidal battles among
nations for food resources.

"No serious scientist wants to be seen as a prophet of doom, but this is
not a prediction, this is history" said Calvin, referring to past
climate flip-flops in Earth's history. Calvin first became interested in
the topic through studying climate's influence on human brain development.

The most dangerous result of global warming could be the triggering of a
modern ice age, says Calvin. Contrary to popular belief, global
temperature change can be fairly quick and drastic. Earth could be due
for another plummet in temperature, a change that could be sparked by
the effect of global warming on currents that form a "heat engine" for
the north Atlantic.

Much of the warming effect of northern latitudes, including Europe, is
created by a powerful North Atlantic current that flows from the tropics
to Greenland. The current endows Europe, a continent that shares the
same latitude with Canada, with a temperate enough climate to support a
population of 650 million.

Drawing on research by Columbia University geochemist *Wallace
Broecker*, Calvin described the North Atlantic current as a conveyer
belt, delivering warm surface water to northern regions. Salt-heavy, the
current reaches northern latitudes near Greenland, sinks, and travels
south to be recycled in waters as far away as the Pacific.

A greenhouse-generated warming effect can cause cooling by dumping large
amounts of fresh water into the ocean, and interrupting the conveyer
belt flow of water in the North Atlantic. Under greenhouse warming
conditions, large amounts of fresh water enter the ocean through
increased high-latitude rainfall and melting ice. Shifts in the ice flow
can also cause blockages in fjords and other waterways, resulting in the
buildup and then sudden release of millions of gallons of freshwater
into the Atlantic.

"We cannot avoid trouble by simply cutting down on our current
contribution to the greenhouse warming trend. We need to identify the
important feedback effects that control climate and ocean currents,"
warned Calvin. Possible global cooling prevention strategies include
opening channels through fjord ice dams, seeding clouds to deliver rain
away from North Atlantic areas of sinking water, regulating the
Mediterranean Sea's salty outflow, and digging a wide sea-level Panama
Canal.

Why has discussion of the Climate Flip-flop scenario not received
greater attention in the media? Calvin was asked. He observed wryly that
"Hollywood catastrophe movies co-opt the marketplace for discussion of
possible futures."

[Roger Bagula]

I had heard a theory that one of the long term effects of global warming
was to cut off that Gulf Stream current to Britain.
It makes all of Europe go into sort of an ice age while the rest of the
world gets much hotter.

This effect could be the lever to get action started on global warming?
I'll do a search , it was last year , I think.

Yep, here it is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602579,00.html

The Sunday Times - Britain

The Sunday Times May 08, 2005

Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown
in the Gulf Stream — the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and
Europe from freezing.

They have found that one of the “engines” driving the Gulf Stream — the
sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less
than a quarter of its former strength.

The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big
changes in the current over the next few years or decades.
Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe
undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.

Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research
is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University,
hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used
ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.

“Until recently we would find giant ‘chimneys’ in the sea where columns
of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000
metres below, but now they have almost disappeared,” he said.

“As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the
south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing,
it will mean less heat reaching Europe.”

Such a change could have a severe impact on Britain, which lies on the
same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder. The Gulf Stream
transports 27,000 times more heat to British shores than all the
nation’s power supplies could provide, warming Britain by 5-8C.

Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes
could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf
Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the
complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and
almost certainly by 2080. This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife
such as the polar bear, which could face extinction.

Wadhams’s submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap,
using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the
ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from
these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice
shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and
recede in summer.

The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the
sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice
crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water, making it heavier
than the water below.

However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in
full in 1997. “In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming
under the shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and
they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed,”
said Wadhams, who disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European
Geosciences Union in Vienna.

The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and
weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other
areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain
circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.

However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. “One of the
frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the
circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold
water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops,” he said.

“The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film —
over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be
to cool the climate of northern Europe.”

One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing
of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest
of the world — but with more extremes of weather.

[Peter Alaca]

Post by Roger Bagula
Second World Skeptics Congress
http://www.csicop.org/si/9811/conference2.html
Experts Review Global Climate Threats, Energy-Saving Solutions
[...]

Without any archaeological context, this
has nothing to do with archaeology, so
please remove sci.archaeology from
your list

[JTEM]

Post by Roger Bagula
Second World Skeptics Congress
http://www.csicop.org/si/9811/conference2.html

"The Second World Skeptics Congress, July 23-26, 1998"

"Roger Bagula," bringing you yester-years news tomorrow!

Again, "Roger Bagula" is simply posting this crap in an
attempt to fill these groups with worthless noise. He wants
people to run to him & his discussion for so that he can
save you all from... well... him.

That's right, "Roger Bagula," as moderator, will weed out
the worthless crap like he posts, freeing you from the all
the clutter he invents.

[Matt Giwer]

http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml

The ^anti Environmentalist's Handbook

or

The counterinsurgency manual for the Environmental Movement
A Compendium of clean answers to dirty ideas

by Matt Giwer, © 1990, 2005

Nothing of interest has changed in the 16 years since I created this draft. In
fact not even the "in just ten years" timeframe for major effects to be seen has
changed even though it is now sixteen years later. So what I wrote in 1990 was
true about 2000 and is still true in 2006.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml
[...]
Nothing of interest has changed in the 16 years
since I created this draft. In fact not even the "in just ten
years" timeframe for major effects to be seen has changed
in 1990 was true about 2000 and is still true in 2006.

You can claim "Global Warming" is a joke, if you really
feel you must, but it's just plain crazy to pretend that
abrupt climate changes won't (or haven't) happened.

Their precise causes are hotly debated, and their duration
is insignificant in all but human terms, but one thing that
nobody can deny is that history is poxed by abrupt &
catastrophic environmental changes.

Ice cores, for example, lay witness to a major event that
just happened to coincide with the collapse of Egypt's
Old Kingdom period. A later event -- though short lived --
coincided with the collapse of civilization from the Aegean
through the near east. Between the two we have the
eruption of Thera/Santorini, which now (thanks to proper
dating) fits nicely into the 17th Century BCE and Egypt's
Second Intermediate Period.

Oh. Maybe I should add:

According to this NASA study, the 17th century BCE
eruption of Thera/Santorini caused abrupt & catastrophic
climate changes as far away as China:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/80s/release_1989_1281.html

You don't have to get into causes here. There's no reason
to except in an attempt to dodge the inescapable fact that
abrupt climate changes not only can happen, but do happen
on a fairly regular schedule.

[Inger E]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml
[...]
Nothing of interest has changed in the 16 years
since I created this draft. In fact not even the "in just ten
years" timeframe for major effects to be seen has changed
in 1990 was true about 2000 and is still true in 2006.

You can claim "Global Warming" is a joke, if you really
feel you must, but it's just plain crazy to pretend that
abrupt climate changes won't (or haven't) happened.

Two different things, you know. Our Earth have had climate changes and due
to what's in the middle of our globe and what might or might not fall from
sky it will and have had climate changes. That the so called greenhouse
effect would cause an abrupt climate change, that's one of the worst stories
ever told. I take it that you haven't the figures for the pollution that was
back in late 1800's when coal, coke and wood were used in enourmous
quantities, when a larger number of cows and horses gave the athmosphere
metan gase as did most of the fields in eastern Asia because leaking metan
when rice was set on larger areas/family because the argiculture revolution
hadn't reach the point that made more grow on less land; when all waste,
garbage or latrine were 'thrown' out in water and on land, when the newly
started industry polluted the air without any kind of cleaning what so ever.
You haven't read the figures I take it for the natural pollution from
'mother' Earth either?

If you had been reading the figures, not for the political 'correct'
chemical products and chemical elements, but for everything, you and those
who been in to this without prejuges wouldn't have tried what you now is
trying.

Forget Global Warming due to human activity. That will not cause and haven't
caused abrupt climate changes except in local areas where men built houses
where no house should be built or cut down trees high up so rain can't use
it's normal way thru the water-circle. Look closer at fresh water and see to
it that all humans have clean water and food. That's worse problem than any
other.

Inger E

[JTEM]

Post by Inger E
I take it that you haven't the figures for the pollution that
was back in late 1800's when coal, coke and wood were
used in enourmous quantities,

Loading Image...

Post by Inger E
You haven't read the figures I take it for the natural pollution
from 'mother' Earth either?

See the ice core data, above.

Post by Inger E
Forget Global Warming due to human activity.

Ironic, because that's exactly what I did do.

But to respond to your comments which you say we
shouldn't comment on: You're fucked in the head.

Seriously.

I don't care what you've been smoking, but if you
seriously believe that there are no consequences
to what we do then you are a frigging nut.

We HAVE changed the environment. We are
continuing to change the environment.

[Peter Alaca]

Inger E wrote: news:THSJg.14948$***@newsb.telia.net

Please remove sci.archaeology

[Roger Bagula]

Post by Peter Alaca
Please remove sci.archaeology

Well, you're certainly a stuck record.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml
[...]
Nothing of interest has changed in the 16 years
since I created this draft. In fact not even the "in just ten
years" timeframe for major effects to be seen has changed
in 1990 was true about 2000 and is still true in 2006.

You can claim "Global Warming" is a joke, if you really
feel you must, but it's just plain crazy to pretend that
abrupt climate changes won't (or haven't) happened.

As would have read it you spent the hours needed to go over the material on
that link I said not one word about abrupt changes being possible or not.

What I addressed was the idea that anything we are doing has any affect on any
of the changes.

The very fact that they did happen before humans existed showw they happen
without human influence.

Post by JTEM
Their precise causes are hotly debated, and their duration
is insignificant in all but human terms, but one thing that
nobody can deny is that history is poxed by abrupt &
catastrophic environmental changes.

It may be a hot debate but is is a stupid one to implicate humans. As for
debate it has always been tabloid melters and skeptics given next to no column
inches at all and then misrepresented by tabloid reporters.

Post by JTEM
Ice cores, for example, lay witness to a major event that
just happened to coincide with the collapse of Egypt's
Old Kingdom period. A later event -- though short lived --
coincided with the collapse of civilization from the Aegean
through the near east. Between the two we have the
eruption of Thera/Santorini, which now (thanks to proper
dating) fits nicely into the 17th Century BCE and Egypt's
Second Intermediate Period.

I guess they were burning too much oil. What is odd is the forcefit which has
no mention in all of Egypt or any place of any noticed effect of the Thera
event. And that includes no mention and no evidence from all sea-faring cultures
at the time.

Post by JTEM
According to this NASA study, the 17th century BCE
eruption of Thera/Santorini caused abrupt & catastrophic
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/80s/release_1989_1281.html
You don't have to get into causes here. There's no reason
to except in an attempt to dodge the inescapable fact that
abrupt climate changes not only can happen, but do happen
on a fairly regular schedule.

And with all those far away effects no one in the med bothered to make mention
of it at the time nor did anyone remember it to write it down later even though
the effects were seen as far away as China. This is an insurmountable issue
until someone finds a mention of it. It does not compute.

The basic problem is both sides of the argument are trying to force the
eruption date and the consequences date into the same date.

And here is a big hint. This entire effort started with trying to use Thera to
demonstrate there was historical content in Exodus as the cause of the plagues
and other miracles regardless of how absurd teh claims.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
What I addressed was the idea that anything we
are doing has any affect on any of the changes.

You made some claims, yes.

Post by Matt Giwer
The very fact that they did happen before humans
existed showw they happen without human influence.

Deserts existed long before man, yet man has created
deserts. There is no logic to this claim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone (anyone) had claimed
that climactic change could only occur through human
activity then you'd have a point. Your, "But these things
have always happened" would sure refute them.

But nobody is making any such claim, and instead of an
argument all you've got is a sad little strawman.

Post by Matt Giwer
It may be a hot debate but is is a stupid one to implicate
humans.

You're barking an empty claim here.

Post by Matt Giwer
I guess they were burning too much oil. What is odd
is the forcefit which has no mention in all of Egypt or
any place of any noticed effect of the Thera event.

Odd that you should say that, right after I provided a
cite that demonstrated the opposite.

Even odder: That you think it matters. We have the
Thera/Santorini eruption. It definitely took place. We
know this for a fact. We can find the debri from this
eruption for hundreds of kilometers, we find the ash
in the Greenland ice cores, and yet you would cast
doubt on the bleeding obvious.

That really says something about you, about your
opinions here.

Post by Matt Giwer
And that includes no mention and no evidence from
all sea-faring cultures at the time.

So how well versed are you in Linear A?

But, again, he fact of the eruption is the one thing that
not only isn't being disputed, but it's the one thing that
nobody can dispute. It's there: The blown out island,
houses buried beneath ash, the meters & meters of
punice stone... it's all there, it all exists and it can not
be denied:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5287124.stm

And yet here you are, denying the undeniable.

Thak you for wrecking your own credibility.

[--more denials of the bleeding obvious snipped--]

Thanks again!

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
What I addressed was the idea that anything we
are doing has any affect on any of the changes.

You made some claims, yes.

I point out the absense of credible evidence and the failure of predictions.

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
The very fact that they did happen before humans
existed showw they happen without human influence.

Deserts existed long before man, yet man has created
deserts. There is no logic to this claim.

Where has man created a desert. Please be specific. The Sahara expands and
contracts on a roughly 24 year cycle if you are going to try to bring up that
old one and not the creation of a desert. Create means a desert where there was
none before.

Post by JTEM
Now, on the other hand, if someone (anyone) had claimed
that climactic change could only occur through human
activity then you'd have a point. Your, "But these things
have always happened" would sure refute them.
But nobody is making any such claim, and instead of an
argument all you've got is a sad little strawman.

The article I replied to contains this link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html

"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth with up to 10
ice ages forcing early settlers into exile, leaving the land uninhabited
for periods of up to 110,000 years, researchers have found.

That link leads to an article which contains this.

This public report, prepared by GBN for the Department of Defense, has been the
subject of several news stories. Fortune magazine excerpted the report in its
Feb. 9, 2004, issue ("The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare," by David Stipp). The
actual report, titled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security," was written by Peter Schwartz (GBN
chairman) and Doug Randall (co-head of GBN's consulting practice) and is
attached here in its PDF version. Contrary to some recent media coverage, the
report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive.

And that Pentagon report comes back to near term major changes which are caused
by humans.

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
It may be a hot debate but is is a stupid one to implicate
humans.

You're barking an empty claim here.

Make an intelligent implication of humans. Please include the amount of
temperature increase in degrees per part per million of CO2.

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
I guess they were burning too much oil. What is odd
is the forcefit which has no mention in all of Egypt or
any place of any noticed effect of the Thera event.

Odd that you should say that, right after I provided a
cite that demonstrated the opposite.

That is not what you did. You cited something things folks try to forcefit into
it. I point out there is no mention of it such as a huge ash cloud, an island
mostly disappearing, tsunamis. There are no direct observations in the record.

Post by JTEM
Even odder: That you think it matters. We have the
Thera/Santorini eruption. It definitely took place. We
know this for a fact. We can find the debri from this
eruption for hundreds of kilometers, we find the ash
in the Greenland ice cores, and yet you would cast
doubt on the bleeding obvious.
That really says something about you, about your
opinions here.

And I am certain we can find evidence of the Mt. St. Helens eruption in
Greenland but that does not mean it was other than a local disaster.

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
And that includes no mention and no evidence from
all sea-faring cultures at the time.

So how well versed are you in Linear A?

Egyptians were sea-faring. They had even built the Red Sea to Nile canal by
that time if I remember correctly.

Post by JTEM
But, again, he fact of the eruption is the one thing that
not only isn't being disputed, but it's the one thing that
nobody can dispute. It's there: The blown out island,
houses buried beneath ash, the meters & meters of
punice stone... it's all there, it all exists and it can not
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5287124.stm
And yet here you are, denying the undeniable.
Thak you for wrecking your own credibility.
[--more denials of the bleeding obvious snipped--]

Actually these are the points which I repeat above.

And with all those far away effects no one in the med bothered to make
mention of it at the time nor did anyone remember it to write it down later even
though the effects were seen as far away as China. This is an insurmountable
issue until someone finds a mention of it. It does not compute.

The basic problem is both sides of the argument are trying to force the
eruption date and the consequences date into the same date.

And here is a big hint. This entire effort started with trying to use Thera
to demonstrate there was historical content in Exodus as the cause of the
plagues and other miracles regardless of how absurd the claims.

Post by JTEM
Thanks again!

The absense of contemporary mention of it reains an insurmountable problem. The
larger the eruption the more difficult to explain the absense of mention. The
smaller it is was the easier the absense of mention to accept.

The idea of trying to tie the fall of civilizations to it makes it huge yet not
even an allegorical mention of the gods destroying an island at the start of all
the troubles.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Matt Giwer
I point out the absense of credible evidence
and the failure of predictions.

Put another way: You lied.

There is credible evidence. The ice cores. It demonstrates
a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

Post by Matt Giwer
Where has man created a desert. Please be specific.

Why? Haven't you already embarrassed yourself enough with
your empty claims, your lies, your strawman arguments
and your willful ignorance?

Oh, heck, I guess you're crazy enough to say something
retarded and think it's brilliant...

It's called "Desertification." Try it in google. You're welcome.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Now, on the other hand, if someone (anyone) had claimed
that climactic change could only occur through human
activity then you'd have a point. Your, "But these things
have always happened" would sure refute them.
But nobody is making any such claim, and instead of an
argument all you've got is a sad little strawman.

[...]
And that Pentagon report comes back to near term major
changes which are caused by humans.

So? Why would you be upset that a report dealt with only
those changes we have the power to stop?

Again, you're pretending that whenever anyone addresses
the human impact on the environment that means that only
humans can have an impact on the environment.

It's a stupid argument. Heck, it's not even an argument!

Post by Matt Giwer
Make an intelligent implication of humans.

Once again: The ice core data.

It demonstrates both a correlation between CO2 levels
and global temperatures, as well as the rise (well above
any natural levels) of CO2 since industrialization.

[---his bullshit denial of an undeniable volcanic eruption snipped---]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Even odder: That you think it matters. We have the
Thera/Santorini eruption. It definitely took place. We
know this for a fact. We can find the debri from this
eruption for hundreds of kilometers, we find the ash
in the Greenland ice cores, and yet you would cast
doubt on the bleeding obvious.
That really says something about you, about your
opinions here.

And I am certain we can find evidence of the Mt. St. Helens
eruption in Greenland but that does not mean it was other
than a local disaster.

We're not talking about a single event here -- only one
eruption or impact that lead to the collapse of whole
civilizations. We're talking about numerous matches
here.

However, given that you are on record denying that the
eruption even took place, I really don't feel it necessary
to debate you further on this point. You're a lost cause.

Post by Matt Giwer
Egyptians were sea-faring.

Great. So you're back to pretending that the volcano
never erupted....

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5287124.stm
Thak you for wrecking your own credibility.
[--more denials of the bleeding obvious snipped--]

Actually these are the points which I repeat above.

Hold on there. Don't give yourself too much credit. You
made some stupid claims, yes, but that hardly qualifies
as making points.

Post by Matt Giwer
And with all those far away effects no one in the med
bothered to make mention of it at the time nor did
anyone remember it to write it down later even though
the effects were seen as far away as China.

Oh I guess that means it never happened, that the pixies
planted all the pumice stone & buried some houses
under ash to fool us...

I'm not sure why you keep missing it, but there something
about "civilization collapsed" that doesn't leave a lot of
room for "well organized library of records."

And when did you crack Linear A? I mean, how else could
you know what it does and does not say if you haven't
cracked it?

Post by Matt Giwer
This is an insurmountable issue until someone finds a
mention of it. It does not compute.

The only thing that doesn't "Compute" is your denial of
a well documented, even observable fact.

Post by Matt Giwer
The basic problem is both sides of the argument are
trying to force the eruption date and the consequences
date into the same date.

No. You've just made that up.

Post by Matt Giwer
And here is a big hint. This entire effort started with trying
to use Thera to demonstrate there was historical content
in Exodus as the cause of the plagues and other miracles
regardless of how absurd the claims.

Totally bogus. This is the first time anyone raised any such
nonsense in this thread, and it's you who is doing it.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer
I point out the absense of credible evidence
and the failure of predictions.

Put another way: You lied.
There is credible evidence. The ice cores. It demonstrates
a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

As noted in 1990 and still true today we have NO IDEA of a full 1/3 of the CO2
cycle. Having no idea of that much of what adds and removes CO2 from the
atmosphere one has a difficult time attributing the small increase entirely to
human causes.

As to the false assumptions in the otherwise incredible field.

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor
knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The
modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air
indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11]
(Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used
to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A
study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in
Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and
9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air
concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not
fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many
glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I
exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited
to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and
international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a
falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the
"hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and
no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was
credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15].
In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines
other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many
billion "climatic" dollars),

Noting here levels greater than now have existed so there is no natural
concentration and thus that unknown 1/3 is in need of explanation first.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer
Where has man created a desert. Please be specific.

Why? Haven't you already embarrassed yourself enough with
your empty claims, your lies, your strawman arguments
and your willful ignorance?
Oh, heck, I guess you're crazy enough to say something
retarded and think it's brilliant...

If you need the extract I copied into this reply explained to you just ask.

Post by j***@gmail.com
It's called "Desertification." Try it in google. You're welcome.

Not one reference on the creation of a new desert. Did you find one I missed?
Please post it.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Now, on the other hand, if someone (anyone) had claimed
that climactic change could only occur through human
activity then you'd have a point. Your, "But these things
have always happened" would sure refute them.
But nobody is making any such claim, and instead of an
argument all you've got is a sad little strawman.

[...]
And that Pentagon report comes back to near term major
changes which are caused by humans.

So? Why would you be upset that a report dealt with only
those changes we have the power to stop?

Because there is no evidence we are causing them in the first place. Even if
all the data is correct, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. A causative
mechanism is needed.

BTW: What do you think should be done with a source that produces 26 trillion
liters of CO2 per day? 9.4 quadrillon liters a year much be causing something.

Post by j***@gmail.com
Again, you're pretending that whenever anyone addresses
the human impact on the environment that means that only
humans can have an impact on the environment.
It's a stupid argument. Heck, it's not even an argument!

Rather I said there is no credible evidence of abnormal global warming from any
cause. We are in an interglacial warm period. We have no idea how warm they get
normally.

Back in the 70s we were warned of the coming ice age based upon the average
temperature dropping in England in the previous 25 years. Today we are told it
is warming and the increase in temperature in England over the last 25 is
mentioned as evidence. No one mentions today's temperature is back to the level
of the early 1950s.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer
Make an intelligent implication of humans.

Once again: The ice core data.

Please cite the actual paper and extract the section which shows what you are
talking about.

Post by j***@gmail.com
It demonstrates both a correlation between CO2 levels
and global temperatures, as well as the rise (well above
any natural levels) of CO2 since industrialization.
[---his bullshit denial of an undeniable volcanic eruption snipped---]

Snipped because it is only questioning the magnitude of the eruption and the
imagined consequences of if. I said nothing about the eruption itself not having
occurred.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Even odder: That you think it matters. We have the
Thera/Santorini eruption. It definitely took place. We
know this for a fact. We can find the debri from this
eruption for hundreds of kilometers, we find the ash
in the Greenland ice cores, and yet you would cast
doubt on the bleeding obvious.
That really says something about you, about your
opinions here.

And I am certain we can find evidence of the Mt. St. Helens
eruption in Greenland but that does not mean it was other
than a local disaster.

We're not talking about a single event here -- only one
eruption or impact that lead to the collapse of whole
civilizations. We're talking about numerous matches
here.
However, given that you are on record denying that the
eruption even took place, I really don't feel it necessary
to debate you further on this point. You're a lost cause.

Post by Matt Giwer
Egyptians were sea-faring.

Great. So you're back to pretending that the volcano
never erupted....

I never said that. It appears reading comprehension is not one of your skills.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5287124.stm
Thak you for wrecking your own credibility.
[--more denials of the bleeding obvious snipped--]

Again, statements of what I really said removed showing you are lying about
what you claim I said.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer
Actually these are the points which I repeat above.

Hold on there. Don't give yourself too much credit. You
made some stupid claims, yes, but that hardly qualifies
as making points.

That the magnitude of the eruption is highly overrated for lack of direct
mention of it? What is incorrect about that statement?

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer
And with all those far away effects no one in the med
bothered to make mention of it at the time nor did
anyone remember it to write it down later even though
the effects were seen as far away as China.

Oh I guess that means it never happened, that the pixies
planted all the pumice stone & buried some houses
under ash to fool us...

It means it is overrated.

Post by j***@gmail.com
I'm not sure why you keep missing it, but there something
about "civilization collapsed" that doesn't leave a lot of
room for "well organized library of records."

Civilization collapsed? Really? There were several large changes over a couple
centuries. There is no evidence they all happened at the same time. Nor is there
any evidence as to why. And certainly if there were major climate changes there
would be all kinds of evidence starting with dendrochronology.

However we do know the eastern Med went from rather lush to arid about that
time and has stayed that way. The last of the Sahara savannahs disappeared
around that time so it was more than just the eastern Med. But as all has stayed
that way it cannot have been caused by a transient event.

Post by j***@gmail.com
And when did you crack Linear A? I mean, how else could
you know what it does and does not say if you haven't
cracked it?

As I said, Egyptian is well understood. They were sea-faring and they were one
of the examples of "collapse" and they make no mention of such an event. Why
would you insist upon it being in the one so far indecipherable language?

But to go further, you are committing a logical fallacy called begging the
question. You are assuming the record is in Linear A and then using the
inability to translate it to bolster your claim. There is no basis for your
assumption therefore the inability to read it meaningless to your claim.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer
This is an insurmountable issue until someone finds a
mention of it. It does not compute.

The only thing that doesn't "Compute" is your denial of
a well documented, even observable fact.

The eruption is a fact. The magnitude you are assuming is not a fact in evidence.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer
The basic problem is both sides of the argument are
trying to force the eruption date and the consequences
date into the same date.

No. You've just made that up.

Sorry but those civilizations did not all collapse at the same time.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Matt Giwer
And here is a big hint. This entire effort started with trying
to use Thera to demonstrate there was historical content
in Exodus as the cause of the plagues and other miracles
regardless of how absurd the claims.

Totally bogus. This is the first time anyone raised any such
nonsense in this thread, and it's you who is doing it.

I am just giving you the origin of the interest in making that eruption into
something huge. This has been around so long Asimov had an article on it over 30
years ago.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
As noted in 1990

It's 2006.

Post by Matt Giwer
and still true today

You have yet to establish that #1) it was ever true and
#2) that it's relevant.

Post by Matt Giwer
we have NO IDEA of a full 1/3 of the CO2 cycle. Having no
idea of that much of what adds and removes CO2 from the
atmosphere one has a difficult time attributing the small
increase entirely to human causes.

The increases are not small, and how we do know how we
(humans) are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. How it's removed
is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Post by Matt Giwer
As to the false assumptions in the otherwise incredible field.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Wow, you'll accept one nut over the word of thousands who
actually work in the field, and you still pretend you're
anything but an ignorant crank with an agenda.

Hint: It was never about JUST ice cores. There's marine
sediments too. There's also more than 40 years of
measuring current levels -- demostrating a distinct rise.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html

Sorry, but that's how real life works. You can't explain
away just one piece of the evidence, because it all fits
together.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by j***@gmail.com
It's called "Desertification." Try it in google. You're welcome.

Not one reference on the creation of a new desert. Did you
find one I missed? Please post it.

http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/june17/2005/menu.php?newch=l2

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100010_04/02/2006_66008

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by j***@gmail.com
So? Why would you be upset that a report dealt with only
those changes we have the power to stop?

Because there is no evidence we are causing them in the first place.

Of course there is. And you know it. If you didn't you wouldn't
have felt it necessary to stoop to strawmen, lies and insane
claims by isolated "scientists."

You'd address the ice cores. Not because they are the only
evidence -- as your isolated "scientist" pretends -- but because
their data is corroberated by ocean sediments as well as
sampling over the last 40+ years.

Post by Matt Giwer
BTW: What do you think should be done with a
source that produces [...]

*Yawn*

It's like this. I've got a bucket that holds five gallons of
water, and I don't want it to overflow. If it's already got
four gallons in it I can only add one gallon. It doesn't
matter if I'd like to get rid of three gallons, if I don't
want the bucket to overflow I can add no more than one.

If someone else comes along before be and adds two
gallons then a whole gallon will overflow onto the floor
and makes a mess. If I still inist in adding a gallon
myself, I make the mess twice as big.

What's important in this scenario is the fact that the
only thing I can control is how much I add to the
bucket.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by j***@gmail.com
Again, you're pretending that whenever anyone addresses
the human impact on the environment that means that only
humans can have an impact on the environment.
It's a stupid argument. Heck, it's not even an argument!

Rather I said there is no credible evidence of abnormal global
warming from any cause. We are in an interglacial warm
period.

Which is more than just wrong, it's the opposite of the
truth.

The evidence is in. The case has been closed. What's
lacking is a single study that demonstrates humans
aren't changing the environment by adding large quantities
of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Post by Matt Giwer
Back in the 70s we were warned of the coming ice age based
upon the average temperature dropping in England in the
previous 25 years.

Which compares to... what? Nothing discussed here. I
introduced corroberating evidence, not a single data point.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by j***@gmail.com
It demonstrates both a correlation between CO2 levels
and global temperatures, as well as the rise (well above
any natural levels) of CO2 since industrialization.
[---his bullshit denial of an undeniable volcanic eruption snipped---]

Snipped because it is only questioning the magnitude
of the eruption

Amazing, huh? You know better than NASA...

By all means, produce for us here the evidence YOU find
so compelling.

Because you have no case, no position, except to be
contrary.

[Inger E]

JTEM,
it doesn't happen often, can't even remember last time I agreed with Matt
Giwer,
but this time he is 100% correct and you and the rest trying to put forward
a Greenhouse effect caused by humans that could in anyway be responsible for
an assumed abrupt Climate Change are as wrong as you can be!

First Climate Changes happens and should by any serious scholar who studied
more than local geology, hydrology and biologic biotopic history +
environmental impacts due to vulcanic eruptions and water + wind erosion
should know to expect ALL of todays so called upwarming! Go back to the
impact that was told to be expected over the next 25-30 years due to St
Helena's eruption! Told by scholars worth their names and grades, which NONE
of todays so called specialists are!

Secondly we still have 1/3 too much Ice in the Arctic to reach the situation
that was around 1000 AD!!!
Don't try to show lack of knowledge of Ice situation back than and remember
that during Bronze Age the temperatures in todays settled areas in Europe,
Asia and NA were more than 2 degrees Celcius above (!) the medium
temperature of 1000 AD!

Better not cry Wulf over and over again - not only do you loose your
credibility as those who cried Wulf implying that your worst scenario were
to have had happened before 1994 when they cried it in 1970's, did. You will
also show lack of all knowledge that are essential for solving the big
problems caused by humans - finding or cleaning water for every one to have
fresh water whereever they have chosed to live AND on the way there take
care of the million casks/barrels dumped in sea!

Inger E

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
As noted in 1990

It's 2006.

Post by Matt Giwer
and still true today

You have yet to establish that #1) it was ever true and
#2) that it's relevant.

Post by Matt Giwer
we have NO IDEA of a full 1/3 of the CO2 cycle. Having no
idea of that much of what adds and removes CO2 from the
atmosphere one has a difficult time attributing the small
increase entirely to human causes.

The increases are not small, and how we do know how we
(humans) are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. How it's removed
is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Post by Matt Giwer
As to the false assumptions in the otherwise incredible field.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Wow, you'll accept one nut over the word of thousands who
actually work in the field, and you still pretend you're
anything but an ignorant crank with an agenda.
Hint: It was never about JUST ice cores. There's marine
sediments too. There's also more than 40 years of
measuring current levels -- demostrating a distinct rise.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html
Sorry, but that's how real life works. You can't explain
away just one piece of the evidence, because it all fits
together.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by j***@gmail.com
It's called "Desertification." Try it in google. You're welcome.

Not one reference on the creation of a new desert. Did you
find one I missed? Please post it.

http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/june17/2005/menu.php?newch=l2

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100010_04/02/2006_660
08

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by j***@gmail.com
So? Why would you be upset that a report dealt with only
those changes we have the power to stop?

Because there is no evidence we are causing them in the first place.

Of course there is. And you know it. If you didn't you wouldn't
have felt it necessary to stoop to strawmen, lies and insane
claims by isolated "scientists."
You'd address the ice cores. Not because they are the only
evidence -- as your isolated "scientist" pretends -- but because
their data is corroberated by ocean sediments as well as
sampling over the last 40+ years.

Post by Matt Giwer
BTW: What do you think should be done with a
source that produces [...]

*Yawn*
It's like this. I've got a bucket that holds five gallons of
water, and I don't want it to overflow. If it's already got
four gallons in it I can only add one gallon. It doesn't
matter if I'd like to get rid of three gallons, if I don't
want the bucket to overflow I can add no more than one.
If someone else comes along before be and adds two
gallons then a whole gallon will overflow onto the floor
and makes a mess. If I still inist in adding a gallon
myself, I make the mess twice as big.
What's important in this scenario is the fact that the
only thing I can control is how much I add to the
bucket.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by j***@gmail.com
Again, you're pretending that whenever anyone addresses
the human impact on the environment that means that only
humans can have an impact on the environment.
It's a stupid argument. Heck, it's not even an argument!

Rather I said there is no credible evidence of abnormal global
warming from any cause. We are in an interglacial warm
period.

Which is more than just wrong, it's the opposite of the
truth.
The evidence is in. The case has been closed. What's
lacking is a single study that demonstrates humans
aren't changing the environment by adding large quantities
of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Post by Matt Giwer
Back in the 70s we were warned of the coming ice age based
upon the average temperature dropping in England in the
previous 25 years.

Which compares to... what? Nothing discussed here. I
introduced corroberating evidence, not a single data point.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by j***@gmail.com
It demonstrates both a correlation between CO2 levels
and global temperatures, as well as the rise (well above
any natural levels) of CO2 since industrialization.
[---his bullshit denial of an undeniable volcanic eruption snipped---]

Snipped because it is only questioning the magnitude
of the eruption

Amazing, huh? You know better than NASA...
By all means, produce for us here the evidence YOU find
so compelling.
Because you have no case, no position, except to be
contrary.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Inger E
JTEM,
it doesn't happen often, can't even remember last time I agreed with Matt
Giwer,

We have exchanged so few posts that is hardly material.

Post by Inger E
but this time he is 100% correct and you and the rest trying to put forward
a Greenhouse effect caused by humans that could in anyway be responsible for
an assumed abrupt Climate Change are as wrong as you can be!

They may be right be chance but there is no evidence in support of their position.

Post by Inger E
First Climate Changes happens and should by any serious scholar who studied
more than local geology, hydrology and biologic biotopic history +
environmental impacts due to vulcanic eruptions and water + wind erosion
should know to expect ALL of todays so called upwarming! Go back to the
impact that was told to be expected over the next 25-30 years due to St
Helena's eruption! Told by scholars worth their names and grades, which NONE
of todays so called specialists are!

An example of the 15 minutes of fame on TV as a quoted academic. The glamor
seduces everyone.

Post by Inger E
Secondly we still have 1/3 too much Ice in the Arctic to reach the situation
that was around 1000 AD!!!

There is as yet no clear idea of how the last ice age broke when and where.
There are estimates between 17 and 12 thousand years ago with 17 prefered
because of the sea level rise data but 12 and numbers in between for some local
data. I have not found raw data supporting 17 thousand.

We do know the eastern med including the Sahara got drier about 4000 years ago.
We know the American southwest got drier 1000 years ago. But we do not know what
caused either.

Post by Inger E
Don't try to show lack of knowledge of Ice situation back than and remember
that during Bronze Age the temperatures in todays settled areas in Europe,
Asia and NA were more than 2 degrees Celcius above (!) the medium
temperature of 1000 AD!

But median temperature does not tell the entire story. If I recall correctly
the little ice age of 1600-1800 or whatever years you want to put to it does not
appear in Scandinavian records. If it is cold already a little colder is not
worth mentioning.

Post by Inger E
Better not cry Wulf over and over again - not only do you loose your
credibility as those who cried Wulf implying that your worst scenario were

Sidebar: In english it is wolf but we pronounce it wulf. English is weird.

Post by Inger E
to have had happened before 1994 when they cried it in 1970's, did. You will
also show lack of all knowledge that are essential for solving the big
problems caused by humans - finding or cleaning water for every one to have
fresh water whereever they have chosed to live AND on the way there take
care of the million casks/barrels dumped in sea!

As for clean water, cheap nuclear power can solve that but it is still taboo.

[Inger E]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Inger E
JTEM,
it doesn't happen often, can't even remember last time I agreed with Matt
Giwer,

We have exchanged so few posts that is hardly material.

I usually don't exchange post with you. Didn't when I wrote to JTEM but do
now.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Inger E
but this time he is 100% correct and you and the rest trying to put forward
a Greenhouse effect caused by humans that could in anyway be responsible for
an assumed abrupt Climate Change are as wrong as you can be!

They may be right be chance but there is no evidence in support of their position.

That's correct in one way, but not in an other. While there is no evidence
in support of their position there are evidence presented from 1957 up to
now contradicting their beliefs.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Inger E
First Climate Changes happens and should by any serious scholar who studied
more than local geology, hydrology and biologic biotopic history +
environmental impacts due to vulcanic eruptions and water + wind erosion
should know to expect ALL of todays so called upwarming! Go back to the
impact that was told to be expected over the next 25-30 years due to St
Helena's eruption! Told by scholars worth their names and grades, which NONE
of todays so called specialists are!

An example of the 15 minutes of fame on TV as a quoted academic. The glamor
seduces everyone.

More politic than 15 minutes of fame on TV as a quoted academic. It's always
interesting to see who supports the quoted academic's studies and
'research'. Then to follow up with the politicians and industrialists behind
the official donator or group.....

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Inger E
Secondly we still have 1/3 too much Ice in the Arctic to reach the situation
that was around 1000 AD!!!

There is as yet no clear idea of how the last ice age broke when and where.

Sorry. I know that the very good studies of these hardly ever been
translated into English but we do know exactly when, give or take 4 years,
where it 'stopped' = didn't withdraw and when, where and when it for shorter
periods freezed more and so on. That's been known since early 1900's and the
latest studies supports the early almost 100%. The studies in between done
from too vague concrete facts gives the impression you refer to. Other
don't.

Post by Matt Giwer
There are estimates between 17 and 12 thousand years ago with 17 prefered
because of the sea level rise data but 12 and numbers in between for some local
data. I have not found raw data supporting 17 thousand.

....... I will return in this question. Promised to send a longer answer in
an other subject to a mail-friend so I don't have time today.

Post by Matt Giwer
We do know the eastern med including the Sahara got drier about 4000 years ago.
We know the American southwest got drier 1000 years ago. But we do not know what
caused either.

Sorry the cause of the Sahara case is wellknown. Will return in that
question as well as the one above.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Inger E
Don't try to show lack of knowledge of Ice situation back than and remember
that during Bronze Age the temperatures in todays settled areas in Europe,
Asia and NA were more than 2 degrees Celcius above (!) the medium
temperature of 1000 AD!

But median temperature does not tell the entire story. If I recall correctly
the little ice age of 1600-1800 or whatever years you want to put to it does not
appear in Scandinavian records. If it is cold already a little colder is not
worth mentioning.

Sorry false information being feed to English scholars and readers. The
little Ice Age is very well known from Scandinavian sources. Among other
things the reason behind that almost all Swedish children from 7th grade up
to University has had to learn and hear about the sources behind, is that
there was something we call 'Tåget över Bält'. Karl X Gustav crossed due to
that the little Ice Age made the sea freezing more than before over sea part
called the Little Belt over to Denmark 1658.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A5get_%C3%B6ver_Stora_B%C3%A4lt (only
Swedish text)

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Inger E
Better not cry Wulf over and over again - not only do you loose your
credibility as those who cried Wulf implying that your worst scenario were

Sidebar: In english it is wolf but we pronounce it wulf. English is weird.

Post by Inger E
to have had happened before 1994 when they cried it in 1970's, did. You will
also show lack of all knowledge that are essential for solving the big
problems caused by humans - finding or cleaning water for every one to have
fresh water whereever they have chosed to live AND on the way there take
care of the million casks/barrels dumped in sea!

As for clean water, cheap nuclear power can solve that but it is still taboo.

That's where I don't agree with you. Nuclear power isn't as clean as people
think. The impact of the inert gases which every Nuclear power plant deflate
is a higher risk then told. Not to mention the impact of the warmwater from
the cold-circulation systems.
To name a few.

Inger E

[JTEM]

More politic than 15 minutes of fame on [...]

Not that you care or are capable of grasping...

Mt. Saint Helen is estimated to have ejected
between 1 & 2 cubic kilometers of material, while
the Thera/Santorini eruption is estimated to have
ejected anywhere from 40 to 60 cubic kilometers of
material.

We're talking about anywhere from 20 to 60 Mt.
Saint Helens eruptions taking place all at once.

Perhaps you should first investigate matters before
making the mistake of splashing your ignorant
opinion again.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

More politic than 15 minutes of fame on [...]

Not that you care or are capable of grasping...
Mt. Saint Helen is estimated to have ejected
between 1 & 2 cubic kilometers of material, while
the Thera/Santorini eruption is estimated to have
ejected anywhere from 40 to 60 cubic kilometers of
material.

ONE or TWO people have made an estimate that high. That anything at all is
still left on the island to be found argues against it.

The majority of volcanologists do not put the estimate that high.

Post by JTEM
We're talking about anywhere from 20 to 60 Mt.
Saint Helens eruptions taking place all at once.

Most people are not talking a huge explosion mostly for the absense of ash
layers in lands surrounding the Med. When someone finds a thick layer of ash
over a wide area in the region there is something to talk about.

Post by JTEM
Perhaps you should first investigate matters before
making the mistake of splashing your ignorant
opinion again.

How is it ignorant when you choose to jump on the largest you can find and
claim it has to be true?

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Mt. Saint Helen is estimated to have ejected
between 1 & 2 cubic kilometers of material, while
the Thera/Santorini eruption is estimated to have
ejected anywhere from 40 to 60 cubic kilometers of
material.

ONE or TWO people have made an estimate that high.
That anything at all is still left on the island to be found
argues against it.

You're being dishonest, again.

The new estimates surpass the old estimates only by
a third. So even if you insist on being contrary (simply
for the sake of being contrary) that still leaves you
with the equivalent of 15 to 40 Mt. Saint Helens eruptions
all taking place at once.

Secondly, your argument about some of the island remaining
is bogus. You have no model to support the claim that it
should be gone, and you certainly have no model that explains
why any of it should have survived the previous estimates. It's
just nonsense.

If I'm wrong, if you're not barking out your as, then by all
means please demonstrate your model for us now.

Post by Matt Giwer
The majority of volcanologists do not put the estimate that high.

That's hardly noteworthy, considering the new estimates are
based on a recent study using echo sounder technology to
measure the volcanic material. No other estimate used this
new data, as it had npt yet existed.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
We're talking about anywhere from 20 to 60 Mt.
Saint Helens eruptions taking place all at once.

Most people are not talking a huge explosion
mostly for the absense of ash layers in lands surrounding
the Med.

Fine. Show us three or abandon the point.

Post by Matt Giwer
When someone finds a thick layer of ash over a wide
area in the region there is something to talk about.

Please show us a cite (form of a URL) which claims that
this ash has not been found.

Post by Matt Giwer
How is it ignorant when you choose to jump on the
largest you can find and claim it has to be true?

So you want to know why it's not ignorant to go with the
latest information available, instead of out of date data?

I'm not going to answer that question. I'm going to allow
you to do it.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Mt. Saint Helen is estimated to have ejected
between 1 & 2 cubic kilometers of material, while
the Thera/Santorini eruption is estimated to have
ejected anywhere from 40 to 60 cubic kilometers of
material.

ONE or TWO people have made an estimate that high.
That anything at all is still left on the island to be found
argues against it.

You're being dishonest, again.
The new estimates surpass the old estimates only by
a third. So even if you insist on being contrary (simply
for the sake of being contrary) that still leaves you
with the equivalent of 15 to 40 Mt. Saint Helens eruptions
all taking place at once.

Given the extent of the Mt. St. Helens effects and given they are a function of
distance squared that still isn't much and it is only downwind.

Post by JTEM
Secondly, your argument about some of the island remaining
is bogus. You have no model to support the claim that it
should be gone, and you certainly have no model that explains
why any of it should have survived the previous estimates. It's
just nonsense.
If I'm wrong, if you're not barking out your as, then by all
means please demonstrate your model for us now.

I simply point out what you posted, that there are buried cities and such being
dug up. They are standing but buried. The greater the eruption the less
standing. Have they even found a knocked over wall?

[JTEM]

Post by Inger E
First Climate Changes happens

As I pointed out -- and you were kind to miss -- this isn't
an argument. Heck, calling it a "Strawman" would be
an insult to strawman arguments everywhere.

Now, on the other hand, if climatologists were claiming
that no climate change could occur unless it was
caused by man, you'd have a point. But climatologists
aren't claiming that (not a single one), so you don't have
a point.

Post by Inger E
Secondly we still have 1/3 too much Ice in the Arctic
to reach the situation that was around 1000 AD!!!

I didn't want to be the one to tell you -- and it's not like
you're bright enough to get it -- but you're merely
repeating the exact same claim and pretending that it's
a different one.

Or do you really not know that it's the exact same claim
rephrased?

Because you started with the strawman that the climate
has changed all on it's own, as if anyone was claiming
otherwise. Your imaginary "Second" point is that the
climate has changed on it's own -- in the case of average
temperatures the size of an ice mass.

[Roger Bagula]

Post by Inger E
First Climate Changes happens

This thread isn't about climate change: ( that is obvious even to
fundamentalist Christians by now)
it is about "Abrupt" climate change that happens when CO2 levels get
high enough.
That ocean currents change so that they don't reach the polar regions
( cycle at a lower level on the globe,north and south)... either of them.
That it has happened in the past and has been the major cause of the
geologically recorded ice ages.
That it seems to be happening now, according to observations by scientists.
That it has happened before and caused trouble with people living all
over the world.
That a lot of very rational people are trying to figure out how to stop
this from happening in the near future.
Roger Bagula

[JTEM]

Nope. I didn't write a single word of it...

Post by Roger Bagula

Post by Inger E
First Climate Changes happens

This thread isn't about climate change: ( that is obvious even
to fundamentalist Christians by now) it is about "Abrupt"
climate change that happens when CO2 levels get high
enough.

Well, of the abrupt climate changes we've seen in the past,
everything from volcanic activity, meteor impact to a Super
Nova in the "nearby" solar system has been blamed.

Others do speculate that humans have been influencing the
climate since long before civilizations arose.

It's not so far fetched, nor even difficult to believe, if you
view the earth in terms of ecosystems. There is, for example,
a general rule (or percentage) for the number of predators an
ecosystem can handle. It may not be exact, but it's easy to
understand that an environment must strike a balance
between predator & prey, else it'll spell doom for both
populations. Humans don't fit the model. Humans are
predators like wolves and lions, yes, but wolves and lions
only hunt for food. Humans, on the other hand, might kill
even when they have an abundance of food -- because they
use the skin for clothing, or they want the bones/horns for
tools or even as a rite of passage.

If food is abundant, humans are known to kill for only a
small part of the animal -- a favored piece of meat considered
a delicacy.

Of course, man's impact on the environment wasn't limited
to just hunting...

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM
Nope. I didn't write a single word of it...

Post by Roger Bagula

Post by Inger E
First Climate Changes happens

This thread isn't about climate change: ( that is obvious even
to fundamentalist Christians by now) it is about "Abrupt"
climate change that happens when CO2 levels get high
enough.

Well, of the abrupt climate changes we've seen in the past,
everything from volcanic activity, meteor impact to a Super
Nova in the "nearby" solar system has been blamed.

There are no examples of permanent climate change due to volcanic activity.
They are all transient. There is no known mechanism for a permanent change due
to a volcano.

Post by JTEM
Others do speculate that humans have been influencing the
climate since long before civilizations arose.

Only the not too bright including that one in Scientific American a couple
years ago.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.

But before demonstrating how wrong you are, I
want to make it perfectly clear that it is a strawman.
Whether there were or were not examples of
permanent climate changes due to volcanic activity
isn't as important here as the fact that I never
claimed there were such examples....

Dude, volcanos are believed to have created the
earth's early atmosphere.... which includes the
CO2.... which in turn...

| Life started to have a major impact on the environment
| once photosynthetic organisms evolved.

Whoops! That kind of knocks the wind out of your
little sails! photosynthetic organisms, feeding off
the CO2 put into the atmosphere by volcanos, had
a major impact on the environment...

| Once oxygen had been produced, ultraviolet light
| split the molecules, producing the ozone UV shield
| as a by-product. Only at this point did life move out
| of the oceans and respiration evolved. We will
| discuss these issues in greater detail later on in this
| course.

So we started with Volcanos spewing CO2 into the
atmosphere, which lead to photosynthetic organisms
consuming the CO2 and pumping out oxygen, which
in turn created the very environment that allowed
life to crawl out of the oceans an on to land.

http://tinyurl.com/r9axd

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/first_billion_years/first_billion_years.html

Fact is, the earth is nothing more than a really, really,
huge terrarium. Everything that happens on a large
scale is going to have an impact. And even small
scale things -- like a tiny photosynthetic organsim
pumping out oxygen -- is, given the time, eventually
going to build to the point where it creates major
earth changes.

You're the one claiming the rules changed. You're the
one claiming that photosynthetic organisms could
completely defefine the environment but mankind is
incapable of any impact.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.
But before demonstrating how wrong you are, I
want to make it perfectly clear that it is a strawman.
Whether there were or were not examples of
permanent climate changes due to volcanic activity
isn't as important here as the fact that I never
claimed there were such examples....
Dude, volcanos are believed to have created the
earth's early atmosphere.... which includes the
CO2.... which in turn...

If transient is now defined as a hundreds of millions of years then you are not
talking about any eruption which was the original discussion. You could have
done better with the Deccan plain eruptions which would only make transient four
million years long.

Post by JTEM
| Life started to have a major impact on the environment
| once photosynthetic organisms evolved.
Whoops! That kind of knocks the wind out of your
little sails! photosynthetic organisms, feeding off
the CO2 put into the atmosphere by volcanos, had
a major impact on the environment...

How old is the paper upon which that comment is based?

Post by JTEM
| Once oxygen had been produced, ultraviolet light
| split the molecules, producing the ozone UV shield
| as a by-product. Only at this point did life move out
| of the oceans and respiration evolved. We will
| discuss these issues in greater detail later on in this
| course.
So we started with Volcanos spewing CO2 into the
atmosphere, which lead to photosynthetic organisms
consuming the CO2 and pumping out oxygen, which
in turn created the very environment that allowed
life to crawl out of the oceans an on to land.
http://tinyurl.com/r9axd
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/first_billion_years/first_billion_years.html
Fact is, the earth is nothing more than a really, really,
huge terrarium. Everything that happens on a large
scale is going to have an impact. And even small
scale things -- like a tiny photosynthetic organsim
pumping out oxygen -- is, given the time, eventually
going to build to the point where it creates major
earth changes.
You're the one claiming the rules changed. You're the
one claiming that photosynthetic organisms could
completely defefine the environment but mankind is
incapable of any impact.

And how does this support your implicit assertion that the effects of Thera
were not transient? You should at least learn to follow your own argument and
try to support it.

As I said, there were changes in progress before Thera. The forests and
savanahs of the Sahara had started to disappear at the end of the ice age. Their
last gasp started a few hundred years before any dating of Thera and were not
complete until after the latest date of Thera.

But you want a transient Thera some place during this roughly 17,000 year long
process to have caused the last bit of it. Can you explain why that is reasonable?

[VtSkier]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.

Agreed. Peter D. Ward, in his book _Gorgon_ posits
the Permian extinction to be the work of several
converging conditions, one of which is the release
of large quantities of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere from... volcanoes. Specifically volcanoes
whose remains today are the Siberian traps.

Other forces were at work and, according to Ward,
the Permian extinction was not due to a single
catastrophic event like the Cretaceous extinction.

It occurred because of a reduction of oxygen in
the atmosphere from global warming (!), the exposure
of organic beds in the sea bottom which led to the
formation of red (oxide) rocks over a period of
up to 50 million years. Triassic rocks are generally
red worldwide.

I can't go into the whole scenario presented but
the reference is:

Ward, Peter D., _Gorgon_ subtitle _Paleontology, Obsession,
and the Greatest Catastrophe in Earth's History_
Viking, 2004, ISBN 0-670-03094-5.

If Ward is even close to right, then the biggest
extinction the planet has ever seen was caused in part
by volcanic activity. This is certainly a "permanent
climate change" and a permanent change (overall) as well.

Post by JTEM
But before demonstrating how wrong you are, I
want to make it perfectly clear that it is a strawman.
Whether there were or were not examples of
permanent climate changes due to volcanic activity
isn't as important here as the fact that I never
claimed there were such examples....
Dude, volcanos are believed to have created the
earth's early atmosphere.... which includes the
CO2.... which in turn...

(snip)

[Eric Stevens]

Post by VtSkier

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.

Agreed. Peter D. Ward, in his book _Gorgon_ posits
the Permian extinction to be the work of several
converging conditions, one of which is the release
of large quantities of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere from... volcanoes. Specifically volcanoes
whose remains today are the Siberian traps.
Other forces were at work and, according to Ward,
the Permian extinction was not due to a single
catastrophic event like the Cretaceous extinction.

One school of thought has been that events were triggered by a major
cometary impact, the shock waves from which were focussed on the far
side of the globe to give rise to the vulcanism which produced the
Siberian traps. More recent studies suggest there may have been
several major impacts at about that time and that the onset of the
Siberian traps cannot be clearly shown to correspond with any of them.

Post by VtSkier
It occurred because of a reduction of oxygen in
the atmosphere from global warming (!), the exposure
of organic beds in the sea bottom which led to the
formation of red (oxide) rocks over a period of
up to 50 million years. Triassic rocks are generally
red worldwide.
I can't go into the whole scenario presented but
Ward, Peter D., _Gorgon_ subtitle _Paleontology, Obsession,
and the Greatest Catastrophe in Earth's History_
Viking, 2004, ISBN 0-670-03094-5.
If Ward is even close to right, then the biggest
extinction the planet has ever seen was caused in part
by volcanic activity. This is certainly a "permanent
climate change" and a permanent change (overall) as well.

Post by JTEM
But before demonstrating how wrong you are, I
want to make it perfectly clear that it is a strawman.
Whether there were or were not examples of
permanent climate changes due to volcanic activity
isn't as important here as the fact that I never
claimed there were such examples....
Dude, volcanos are believed to have created the
earth's early atmosphere.... which includes the
CO2.... which in turn...

(snip)

Eric Stevens

[VtSkier]

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by VtSkier

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.

Agreed. Peter D. Ward, in his book _Gorgon_ posits
the Permian extinction to be the work of several
converging conditions, one of which is the release
of large quantities of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere from... volcanoes. Specifically volcanoes
whose remains today are the Siberian traps.
Other forces were at work and, according to Ward,
the Permian extinction was not due to a single
catastrophic event like the Cretaceous extinction.

One school of thought has been that events were triggered by a major
cometary impact, the shock waves from which were focussed on the far
side of the globe to give rise to the vulcanism which produced the
Siberian traps. More recent studies suggest there may have been
several major impacts at about that time and that the onset of the
Siberian traps cannot be clearly shown to correspond with any of them.

One of the things Ward and his colleagues were looking for
was evidence of some catastrophic event, like a cometary
impact. He was most frustrated when he didn't find any.
Doesn't mean there wasn't any, but probably such "catastrophic
events" weren't enough alone to produce the results found,
just as the CO2 from the traps volcanoes weren't enough in
themselves to produce the results.

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by VtSkier
It occurred because of a reduction of oxygen in
the atmosphere from global warming (!), the exposure
of organic beds in the sea bottom which led to the
formation of red (oxide) rocks over a period of
up to 50 million years. Triassic rocks are generally
red worldwide.
I can't go into the whole scenario presented but
Ward, Peter D., _Gorgon_ subtitle _Paleontology, Obsession,
and the Greatest Catastrophe in Earth's History_
Viking, 2004, ISBN 0-670-03094-5.
If Ward is even close to right, then the biggest
extinction the planet has ever seen was caused in part
by volcanic activity. This is certainly a "permanent
climate change" and a permanent change (overall) as well.

Post by JTEM
But before demonstrating how wrong you are, I
want to make it perfectly clear that it is a strawman.
Whether there were or were not examples of
permanent climate changes due to volcanic activity
isn't as important here as the fact that I never
claimed there were such examples....
Dude, volcanos are believed to have created the
earth's early atmosphere.... which includes the
CO2.... which in turn...

(snip)

Eric Stevens

[Matt Giwer]

Post by VtSkier

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.

Agreed. Peter D. Ward, in his book _Gorgon_ posits
the Permian extinction to be the work of several
converging conditions, one of which is the release
of large quantities of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere from... volcanoes. Specifically volcanoes
whose remains today are the Siberian traps.
Other forces were at work and, according to Ward,
the Permian extinction was not due to a single
catastrophic event like the Cretaceous extinction.
It occurred because of a reduction of oxygen in
the atmosphere from global warming (!), the exposure
of organic beds in the sea bottom which led to the
formation of red (oxide) rocks over a period of
up to 50 million years. Triassic rocks are generally
red worldwide.
I can't go into the whole scenario presented but
Ward, Peter D., _Gorgon_ subtitle _Paleontology, Obsession,
and the Greatest Catastrophe in Earth's History_
Viking, 2004, ISBN 0-670-03094-5.
If Ward is even close to right, then the biggest
extinction the planet has ever seen was caused in part
by volcanic activity. This is certainly a "permanent
climate change" and a permanent change (overall) as well.

And this compares to the relatively minor belch of Thera in what way?

[VtSkier]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by VtSkier

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.

Agreed. Peter D. Ward, in his book _Gorgon_ posits
the Permian extinction to be the work of several
converging conditions, one of which is the release
of large quantities of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere from... volcanoes. Specifically volcanoes
whose remains today are the Siberian traps.
Other forces were at work and, according to Ward,
the Permian extinction was not due to a single
catastrophic event like the Cretaceous extinction.
It occurred because of a reduction of oxygen in
the atmosphere from global warming (!), the exposure
of organic beds in the sea bottom which led to the
formation of red (oxide) rocks over a period of
up to 50 million years. Triassic rocks are generally
red worldwide.
I can't go into the whole scenario presented but
Ward, Peter D., _Gorgon_ subtitle _Paleontology, Obsession,
and the Greatest Catastrophe in Earth's History_
Viking, 2004, ISBN 0-670-03094-5.
If Ward is even close to right, then the biggest
extinction the planet has ever seen was caused in part
by volcanic activity. This is certainly a "permanent
climate change" and a permanent change (overall) as well.

And this compares to the relatively minor belch of Thera in what way?

It puts the lie to, "There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity." Whoever said that. Was it you?
I couldn't really tell from the post.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by VtSkier

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by VtSkier

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.

Agreed. Peter D. Ward, in his book _Gorgon_ posits
the Permian extinction to be the work of several
converging conditions, one of which is the release
of large quantities of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere from... volcanoes. Specifically volcanoes
whose remains today are the Siberian traps.
Other forces were at work and, according to Ward,
the Permian extinction was not due to a single
catastrophic event like the Cretaceous extinction.
It occurred because of a reduction of oxygen in
the atmosphere from global warming (!), the exposure
of organic beds in the sea bottom which led to the
formation of red (oxide) rocks over a period of
up to 50 million years. Triassic rocks are generally
red worldwide.
I can't go into the whole scenario presented but
Ward, Peter D., _Gorgon_ subtitle _Paleontology, Obsession,
and the Greatest Catastrophe in Earth's History_
Viking, 2004, ISBN 0-670-03094-5.
If Ward is even close to right, then the biggest
extinction the planet has ever seen was caused in part
by volcanic activity. This is certainly a "permanent
climate change" and a permanent change (overall) as well.

And this compares to the relatively minor belch of Thera in what way?

It puts the lie to, "There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity." Whoever said that. Was it you?
I couldn't really tell from the post.

If you want to equate millions of years of continuous eruptions to a belch from
Thera you do not understand the matter any more than jtem.

[VtSkier]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by VtSkier

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by VtSkier

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity.

Another strawman... not to mention inaccurate.

Agreed. Peter D. Ward, in his book _Gorgon_ posits
the Permian extinction to be the work of several
converging conditions, one of which is the release
of large quantities of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere from... volcanoes. Specifically volcanoes
whose remains today are the Siberian traps.
Other forces were at work and, according to Ward,
the Permian extinction was not due to a single
catastrophic event like the Cretaceous extinction.
It occurred because of a reduction of oxygen in
the atmosphere from global warming (!), the exposure
of organic beds in the sea bottom which led to the
formation of red (oxide) rocks over a period of
up to 50 million years. Triassic rocks are generally
red worldwide.
I can't go into the whole scenario presented but
Ward, Peter D., _Gorgon_ subtitle _Paleontology, Obsession,
and the Greatest Catastrophe in Earth's History_
Viking, 2004, ISBN 0-670-03094-5.
If Ward is even close to right, then the biggest
extinction the planet has ever seen was caused in part
by volcanic activity. This is certainly a "permanent
climate change" and a permanent change (overall) as well.

And this compares to the relatively minor belch of Thera in what way?

It puts the lie to, "There are no examples of permanent climate
change due to volcanic activity." Whoever said that. Was it you?
I couldn't really tell from the post.

If you want to equate millions of years of continuous eruptions to a
belch from Thera you do not understand the matter any more than jtem.

Hey, you made the statement. You made a dogmatic statement.
Dogmatic statements are almost always false as this one was.
I simply pointed that out. As did another poster who pointed
out that volcanism (volcanic activity) was probably responsible
for CO2 in the atmosphere which gave rise to photosynthetic
bacteria which in turn gave rise to an oxygen atmosphere.

As for Thera, it probably caused a large (by human standards)
jolt to a civilization, but in terms of geologic time, it
wasn't much at all. Krakatoa (did I spell it right?) was a big
deal here in New England. It produced the year "Eighteen hundred
and froze-to-death". Yet New England has about the same climate
as it did before Krakatoa.

[Matt Giwer]

...

Post by VtSkier

Post by Matt Giwer
If you want to equate millions of years of continuous eruptions to
a belch from Thera you do not understand the matter any more than jtem.

Hey, you made the statement. You made a dogmatic statement.
Dogmatic statements are almost always false as this one was.

It was certainly implied by the context we were discussing the usual type of
eruption from a single volcano not anything like these twice in 4.5 billion
years events.

Post by VtSkier
I simply pointed that out. As did another poster who pointed
out that volcanism (volcanic activity) was probably responsible

Probably is a hell of a long way from did.

Post by VtSkier
for CO2 in the atmosphere which gave rise to photosynthetic
bacteria which in turn gave rise to an oxygen atmosphere.

Nor is this more than speculation. So little CO2 is in the atmosphere that it
is unnecessary to find a large source of it. Comets brought water why not CO2?
Water comets hitting at their usual speed would dissociate water into hydrogen
and oxygen and certainly hot enough to burn with methane resulting in CO2.
Plants only need what little there is and there is reason to assume the earliest
form got carbon from gaseous CO2.

Because of all the problems with an early atmosphere the best guess today is
life started in ocean thermal vents which migrated towards shallow water over
time and evolved to intermediate metabolic processes making use of atmopheric
gases. There were most certainly many more thermal vents on the early earth than
now and they release CO2.

Post by VtSkier
As for Thera, it probably caused a large (by human standards)
jolt to a civilization,

The major problem with that is the absense of any surviving mention of a
volcanic event. There is no surviving description of any of the circumstances
which might surround a volcanic event. There are no inches thick layers of ash
found on the shores of the Med which are independent of any written record.
There is no evidence of anything but ash burial of structures on the island
itself. An explosion of the magnitude proposed would have flattened everything
before the ash started falling as happened on Krakatoa.

That is where making it a huge event comes up short. There is no "jolt" to
civilizations all over the world within a year or two of the same date therefore
the supposed indirect evidence does not exist. BUT even though the date of the
eruption has moved around by over a thousand years, regardless of the date cited
people have "found" this "jolt" to civilizations.

It may be possible to make a case for this but it has not been done. There is
no point in going further until it is done. Some people want to see it as a huge
explosion and only look at these supposed disruptions of civilizations which are
"found to be" at the same time of the eruption no matter when the eruption took
place.

Post by VtSkier
but in terms of geologic time, it
wasn't much at all. Krakatoa (did I spell it right?) was a big
deal here in New England. It produced the year "Eighteen hundred
and froze-to-death". Yet New England has about the same climate
as it did before Krakatoa.

Which does mean transient does it not? No civilization in the world collapsed
or was more than inconvenienced save those in the immediate vicinity of
Krakatoa. Yet there are records of eruption related events all over the world.
Egypt wrote a lot and was sea-faring. It is rather difficult to imagine they
left no record of the eruption or anything related to an eruption if it was of
the desired magnitude.

As I mentioned in another post. This has been around over 30 years and was
first proposed to find history in Exodus. Prior to that Velikovsky's crackpot
ideas were used to find history in Exodus. And he found these same "jolts" to
civlizations as do the Thera-huggers. The problem for Velikovsky was that
scientists said is science was all wrong but his history was intriguing.
Historians said the opposite that his history was all wrong. The history is all
wrong to support this huge Thera eruption.

It is unclear why people want to believe this. I have not problem with it being
a huge explosion if it can be properly established independently. Once it is
established we can perhaps find some sort of mention of it or its related
effects. If real we will be able to estimate its effects by looking at
civilizations at the time of the event and see if ANY were effected.

Maybe we are looking in the wrong direction. As with Krakatoa, the year of no
summer. Thera the year of the pleasant summer, shitloads of rain and bountiful
crops. The idea it was a disaster is the exact opposite of how weakening the sun
would be for those in hot, arid regions. But people love to search for
disasters, its good Hollywood and good bible where this stuff started. (Lots of
dust nucleating even trivial amounts of moisture into rain.)

Find records in several places in the region at roughly the same time of a
god-sent summer and you have something because that IS what you would expect
from lots of dust in the atmosphere in the eastern Med.

How about other effects of high atmospheric dust? The year the dim stars could
not been seen at night. The year of the halo around the moon. Would they notice
dust falling as a problem in a region of regular sand storms and every wind
bringing some dust? Why? The year of the little sandstorms perhaps. If cooler
there should have been fewer real sandstorms.

I can talk around this for a long time but eventually it gets tiring. There has
to be direct evidence of a significant magnitude before going any further. There
has to be direct evidence and there is no way to get around its absense.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
It was certainly implied by the context we were
discussing the usual type of eruption from a
single volcano not anything like these twice in
4.5 billion years events.

Yes & no.

Calling Thera/Santorini "the usual type of eruption"
is simply another one of your strawman arguments.

Secondly, I already provided a cite that addressed
the climate change brought on by an eruption the
size of Krakatoa in 1883, which was SMALLER
than Thera/Santorini.

So, yeah, the abrupt climate changes brought on
by eruptions smaller than Thera/Santorini HAS
ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED, and you're
simply ignoring this fact because you're a pubeless
shit reduced to trolling usenet for his thrills.

[Eric Stevens]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
It was certainly implied by the context we were
discussing the usual type of eruption from a
single volcano not anything like these twice in
4.5 billion years events.

Yes & no.
Calling Thera/Santorini "the usual type of eruption"
is simply another one of your strawman arguments.
Secondly, I already provided a cite that addressed
the climate change brought on by an eruption the
size of Krakatoa in 1883, which was SMALLER
than Thera/Santorini.
So, yeah, the abrupt climate changes brought on
by eruptions smaller than Thera/Santorini HAS
ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED, and you're
simply ignoring this fact because you're a pubeless
shit reduced to trolling usenet for his thrills.

But whether or not such a climate change is permanent, or even of long
standing is another matter. I suppose that to some extent this depends
upon your life expectancy. :-)



Eric Stevens

[Inger E]

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
It was certainly implied by the context we were
discussing the usual type of eruption from a
single volcano not anything like these twice in
4.5 billion years events.

Yes & no.
Calling Thera/Santorini "the usual type of eruption"
is simply another one of your strawman arguments.
Secondly, I already provided a cite that addressed
the climate change brought on by an eruption the
size of Krakatoa in 1883, which was SMALLER
than Thera/Santorini.
So, yeah, the abrupt climate changes brought on
by eruptions smaller than Thera/Santorini HAS
ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED, and you're
simply ignoring this fact because you're a pubeless
shit reduced to trolling usenet for his thrills.

But whether or not such a climate change is permanent, or even of long
standing is another matter. I suppose that to some extent this depends
upon your life expectancy. :-)

Eric,
minor eruptions than the mentioned ones have caused climate changes lasting
between 50 to 100 years.

Inger E

Post by Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens

[Matt Giwer]

...

Post by Inger E

Post by Eric Stevens
But whether or not such a climate change is permanent, or even of long
standing is another matter. I suppose that to some extent this depends
upon your life expectancy. :-)

Eric,
minor eruptions than the mentioned ones have caused climate changes lasting
between 50 to 100 years.

Which ones? I have never heard of such a thing. Two to three years tops for
significant changes. If you mean regrowth of an area the surprising thing about
Mt. St. Helens was how fast things got back to normal. Environment and climate
are very different things. How can a local event change global sun/earth
interacations for that long?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
It was certainly implied by the context we were
discussing the usual type of eruption from a
single volcano not anything like these twice in
4.5 billion years events.

Yes & no.
Calling Thera/Santorini "the usual type of eruption"
is simply another one of your strawman arguments.

Produce evidence it was unusual. Not theory, direct evidence on the ground. Not
indirect inference but the layer of ash.

Post by JTEM
Secondly, I already provided a cite that addressed
the climate change brought on by an eruption the
size of Krakatoa in 1883, which was SMALLER
than Thera/Santorini.

Produce evidence of a climate change as a result of Thera.

Post by JTEM
So, yeah, the abrupt climate changes brought on
by eruptions smaller than Thera/Santorini HAS
ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED, and you're
simply ignoring this fact because you're a pubeless
shit reduced to trolling usenet for his thrills.

You are failing to produce any primary evidence of an unusual eruption
associated with Thera.

If have bothered to read through to the end you would have found a suggestion
of it being better to look for records of a wonderful mild summer following it
rather than catastrophe.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
And this compares to the relatively minor belch
of Thera in what way?

Oh, I'm sorry, you were creating another strawman.

Because, Thera/Santorini happened, and it is tied
to the collapse of civilization from Egypt to China.

You know, it's sort of like if you establish that
someone committed a murder then they are a
murderer. How many people they didn't kill doesn't
matter. Once you establish that they had in fact
murdered someone, it doesn't matter if they never
killed anyone before or since.

In that same sense we have the eruption of Thera/
Santorini, and the ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGES
which it brought on. you can spend the next 50
years typing out examples where volcanic activity
did not have this cataclysmic effect, and it would
all be a complete waste of time.

Thera/Santorini did erupt and it did cause ABRUPT
climatic changes which had dire consequences on
civilization.

Address THIS fact, or continue with your mindless
strawman arguments.

[Eric Stevens]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
And this compares to the relatively minor belch
of Thera in what way?

Oh, I'm sorry, you were creating another strawman.
Because, Thera/Santorini happened, and it is tied
to the collapse of civilization from Egypt to China.
You know, it's sort of like if you establish that
someone committed a murder then they are a
murderer. How many people they didn't kill doesn't
matter. Once you establish that they had in fact
murdered someone, it doesn't matter if they never
killed anyone before or since.
In that same sense we have the eruption of Thera/
Santorini, and the ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGES
which it brought on. you can spend the next 50
years typing out examples where volcanic activity
did not have this cataclysmic effect, and it would
all be a complete waste of time.
Thera/Santorini did erupt and it did cause ABRUPT
climatic changes which had dire consequences on
civilization.
Address THIS fact, or continue with your mindless
strawman arguments.

Before you get carried away too far on this line of argument, which
particular date are you favouring/postulating for Santorini?



Eric Stevens

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
And this compares to the relatively minor belch
of Thera in what way?

Oh, I'm sorry, you were creating another strawman.
Because, Thera/Santorini happened, and it is tied
to the collapse of civilization from Egypt to China.
You know, it's sort of like if you establish that
someone committed a murder then they are a
murderer. How many people they didn't kill doesn't
matter. Once you establish that they had in fact
murdered someone, it doesn't matter if they never
killed anyone before or since.
In that same sense we have the eruption of Thera/
Santorini, and the ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGES
which it brought on. you can spend the next 50
years typing out examples where volcanic activity
did not have this cataclysmic effect, and it would
all be a complete waste of time.
Thera/Santorini did erupt and it did cause ABRUPT
climatic changes which had dire consequences on
civilization.
Address THIS fact, or continue with your mindless
strawman arguments.

Before you get carried away too far on this line of argument, which
particular date are you favouring/postulating for Santorini?

What does it matter? All of the problems with civilizations are at different
times from earlier than the earliest Thera to later than the latest Thera date.

We have no idea if those problems with civilization were even real instead of
exaggerated as a popular fad. Disease, new technology, new ideas anything can
upset civilizations. That it happened over a couple centuries is not in
question. Abrupt climate and non-abrupt civilization disruption does not go
together. "Some civilizations were more robust" is making an excuse for the data
not matching.

It is a fact North Africa and the eastern Med have been drying since the end of
the Ice Age. Trying to say that a single eruption made a difference in trend
going back over ten thousand years is hitching a ride on a winner. Sort of like
all the GIs who won WWII but Eisenhower stole the credit. There is no direct
evidence of any climate change. The boy is trying to weave indirect evidence
into only one possible explanation without the least difference in trends or
evidence of all at the same time.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
We have no idea if those problems with
civilization were even real instead of exaggerated
as a popular fad.

| "Exceptionally violent volcanic explosions have
| historically triggered climatic change and brought
| about devastating agricultural problems," said Dr.
| William Ryan of the Lamont-Doherty Earth
| Observatory of Columbia University.

It goes on:

| "That happened when Tambora exploded in 1816
| AD and caused the year without a summer.
| Since pre-industrial economies have an
| agricultural base, a similar explosion could ruin
| them. Economic calamity would be a powerful
| motive for radical political change," he said.

http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf

The Year Without A Summer:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22year+without+a+summer%22

(that's 37,300 Google hits)

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
We have no idea if those problems with
civilization were even real instead of exaggerated
as a popular fad.

| "Exceptionally violent volcanic explosions have
| historically triggered climatic change and brought
| about devastating agricultural problems," said Dr.
| William Ryan of the Lamont-Doherty Earth
| Observatory of Columbia University.
| "That happened when Tambora exploded in 1816
| AD and caused the year without a summer.
| Since pre-industrial economies have an
| agricultural base, a similar explosion could ruin
| them. Economic calamity would be a powerful
| motive for radical political change," he said.
http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22year+without+a+summer%22
(that's 37,300 Google hits)

None of that applies to Thera, period. End of discussion.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf

None of that applies to Thera, period. End of discussion.

Thera doesn't apply to Thera?

You're mocking your pubeless self now!

[JTEM]

Post by Eric Stevens
Before you get carried away too far on this
line of argument, which particular date are
you favouring/postulating for Santorini?

I don't have an emotional attachment to any date,
but the evidence comes down pretty solidly for
the 17th century BC.

STRAWMAN WARNING: The date is irrelevant to
this conversaton unless you also want to claim
that it can not be coupled to severe environmental
consequences.

[Eric Stevens]

Post by JTEM

Post by Eric Stevens
Before you get carried away too far on this
line of argument, which particular date are
you favouring/postulating for Santorini?

I don't have an emotional attachment to any date,
but the evidence comes down pretty solidly for
the 17th century BC.
STRAWMAN WARNING: The date is irrelevant to
this conversaton unless you also want to claim
that it can not be coupled to severe environmental
consequences.

It's not at all a strawman argument as would be obvious if you had not
snipped the relevant text.

You had just written:

"Because, Thera/Santorini happened, and it is tied
to the collapse of civilization from Egypt to China."

There were certainly collapses in these various places but whether or
not they can be attributed to Santorini depends on the date the
eruption occurred. The date for Santorini has (and still is) been
subject to much debate and has been moved around by several centuries
to coincide with various historical collapses, ice-core data etc.
Preferred dates have included 1250BC, 1390BC, 1450BC, 1500BC, 1630BC.
According to Mike Baillie, dendrochronological evidence points to
1628BC (or possibly 1629BC).

I think you will have problems tying 1628BC to the "collapse of
civilization from Egypt to China." There are better dates than this to
tie to worldwide collapse. Unfortunately the nature of the event which
caused them is not entirely clear.



Eric Stevens

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
And this compares to the relatively minor belch
of Thera in what way?

Oh, I'm sorry, you were creating another strawman.
Because, Thera/Santorini happened, and it is tied
to the collapse of civilization from Egypt to China.

It has not been tied to that at all. The timing is not the same. And if there
were there would have been much greater and instant all at the same time
collapses in the Med. There were not. Period. There WERE NOT.

Post by JTEM
You know, it's sort of like if you establish that
someone committed a murder then they are a
murderer. How many people they didn't kill doesn't
matter. Once you establish that they had in fact
murdered someone, it doesn't matter if they never
killed anyone before or since.

You could get a grand jury to indict your ham sandwich. You have claimed
finding trace of ash in China certainly not enough for a climate change. Where
are the inches or feet of ash in Egypt, Palestine, Greece, Mesopotamia? You do
not have the least idea how far you have to go to make your case.

You cannot make all the western things happen at the same time as they did not.
There is ZERO evidence any of them were due to climate change. Now when you find
vastly different pollen fossils over a short time you have a climate change.
Where are they found?

Post by JTEM
In that same sense we have the eruption of Thera/
Santorini, and the ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGES
which it brought on. you can spend the next 50
years typing out examples where volcanic activity
did not have this cataclysmic effect, and it would
all be a complete waste of time.

You have yet to present any evidence of any climate changes. You have tried to
claim problems with civilizations in a period a few centuries about the best
guesses for Thera are because of climate changes. You have not established
climate change itself.

Post by JTEM
Thera/Santorini did erupt and it did cause ABRUPT
climatic changes which had dire consequences on
civilization.
Address THIS fact, or continue with your mindless
strawman arguments.

I am more than willing to address any DIRECT evidence of this abrupt climate
change you can produce. Please do so and stop trying to pretend indirect
evidence "can only be explained by" Thera. And begging the question "no better
explanation" has been a named logical fallacy for 2500 years.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Because, Thera/Santorini happened, and it is tied
to the collapse of civilization from Egypt to China.

It has not been tied to that at all.

Here's a cite (previously offered) that credits it with ending
the Middle Bronze Age:

http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf

Here's another one (previously offered) that specifically
links it to the end of China's first dynasty:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/80s/release_1989_1281.html

Not that it matters. We both know that you're intentionally
lying, and that you're not about to start sprouting some
pubic hair any time soon...

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Because, Thera/Santorini happened, and it is tied
to the collapse of civilization from Egypt to China.

It has not been tied to that at all.

Here's a cite (previously offered) that credits it with ending
http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf

Dear dumb ass,

Please tell me how an eruption can change metalurgy. I think all the world is
waiting to hear how a volcano can move foreward the skills needed for
progression in the use of bronze.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Here's a cite (previously offered) that credits it with ending
http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf

Dear dumb ass,

It's okay. Your mommy drank, didn't she?

Post by Matt Giwer
Please tell me how an eruption can change metalurgy.

Did you know who your daddy was, and did he beat you?

[Eric Stevens]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
Because, Thera/Santorini happened, and it is tied
to the collapse of civilization from Egypt to China.

It has not been tied to that at all.

Here's a cite (previously offered) that credits it with ending
http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf

1650BC

Post by JTEM
Here's another one (previously offered) that specifically
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/80s/release_1989_1281.html

Late 17th century BC.

Post by JTEM
Not that it matters. We both know that you're intentionally
lying, and that you're not about to start sprouting some
pubic hair any time soon...

Eric Stevens

[JTEM]

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by JTEM
Here's a cite (previously offered) that credits it with ending
http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf

1650BC

The mid to late 17th century BC.

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by JTEM
Here's another one (previously offered) that specifically
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/80s/release_1989_1281.html

Late 17th century BC.

Which falls in line nicely with the above dating. it's not
exact (some dating places Thera/Santorini as late as
1627 BC).

EARLY in the 17th century BC would be, say, 1690,
while LATE in the 17th century BC would be, say,
sometime after 1650 (which, of course, is the mid point).

We're counting DOWN, remember.

And then there's the fact that things take a while. The loss
of one summer or the experience of one draught might
shake things up, but several years of climactic upheaval
are far more difficult to survive.

And disasters even of this magnitude do not strike everyone
and everywhere equally. A lot of the problems are believed
to be associated with the uprooting & moving of a great
many people who would all suddenly be in search of lands
that could support them.

Refugees are a big problem TODAY.

Seriously. This isn't difficult or the least bit radical.

[Eric Stevens]

Post by JTEM

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by JTEM
Here's a cite (previously offered) that credits it with ending
http://geology.rutgers.edu/pdf/Newsletter2005Spring.pdf

1650BC

The mid to late 17th century BC.

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by JTEM
Here's another one (previously offered) that specifically
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/80s/release_1989_1281.html

Late 17th century BC.

Which falls in line nicely with the above dating. it's not
exact (some dating places Thera/Santorini as late as
1627 BC).
EARLY in the 17th century BC would be, say, 1690,
while LATE in the 17th century BC would be, say,
sometime after 1650 (which, of course, is the mid point).
We're counting DOWN, remember.
And then there's the fact that things take a while. The loss
of one summer or the experience of one draught might
shake things up, but several years of climactic upheaval
are far more difficult to survive.
And disasters even of this magnitude do not strike everyone
and everywhere equally. A lot of the problems are believed
to be associated with the uprooting & moving of a great
many people who would all suddenly be in search of lands
that could support them.
Refugees are a big problem TODAY.
Seriously. This isn't difficult or the least bit radical.

There is nothing wrong with the basic idea. Its just that, except as a
relatively local event, the case against Santorini has not yet been
properly made IMHO.

Apart from that, the Taupo (New Zealand) eruption of 186 AD exceeded
Santorini in both violence and volume of ejected material. It's
effects were noted in Rome but no civilisations collapsed as far as I
am aware.



Eric Stevens

[JTEM]

Post by Eric Stevens
There is nothing wrong with the basic idea. Its just that,
except as a relatively local event,

....stretching as far as China

Post by Eric Stevens
the case against Santorini has not yet been properly
made IMHO.

The only alternative is to claim coincidences atop
coincidences.

Post by Eric Stevens
Apart from that, the Taupo (New Zealand) eruption of 186
AD exceeded Santorini in both violence and volume of
ejected material.

Krakatoa (in the late 19th century) was smaller, so you
need to tell all the researchers that they're wrong about
that one, too:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/gerhard/index.htm

Contrary to your claims, the only people on this earth
who dispute the Thera/Santorini FACTS are those
heavily invested in a timeline which requires the eruption
to take place later.

If you're going to dispute the effects of Thera/Santorini
you might as well start arguing Creation "Science."

It's done. The case is closed. The fat lady sang.

[Eric Stevens]

Post by JTEM

Post by Eric Stevens
There is nothing wrong with the basic idea. Its just that,
except as a relatively local event,

....stretching as far as China

Something stretched as far as China, but was it Krakatoa?

Post by JTEM

Post by Eric Stevens
the case against Santorini has not yet been properly
made IMHO.

The only alternative is to claim coincidences atop
coincidences.

That is true, but only if you insist we already know all there is to
know.

Post by JTEM

Post by Eric Stevens
Apart from that, the Taupo (New Zealand) eruption of 186
AD exceeded Santorini in both violence and volume of
ejected material.

Krakatoa (in the late 19th century) was smaller, so you
need to tell all the researchers that they're wrong about
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/gerhard/index.htm

I don't know why you should confuse Krakatoa with Taupo. The Taupo
eruption of 186AD is believed to have ejected 110 cubic kilometres of
material, with 30 cubic kilometres being ejected in a matter of hours
(some estimates suggest less than seven minutes). In comparison, the
bronze age eruption of Santorini is commonly held to have ejected 13
to 19 cubic kilometres (see http://tinyurl.com/payk3 ) with some
arguing for as much as 40 cubic kilometres.

Post by JTEM
Contrary to your claims, the only people on this earth
who dispute the Thera/Santorini FACTS are those
heavily invested in a timeline which requires the eruption
to take place later.

Later than what? Later than 1628?

Post by JTEM
If you're going to dispute the effects of Thera/Santorini
you might as well start arguing Creation "Science."
It's done. The case is closed. The fat lady sang.

You are too late slamming the door some of your certainty has escaped.



Eric Stevens

[JTEM]

Post by Eric Stevens
Something stretched as far as China, but
was it Krakatoa?

Thera/Santorini.

Look. We can make this real simple. Post a
few citations you do believe. Show us what it
is that you're accepting above the cites I
offered.

Do it.

Because, thus far, you haven't offered a
goddamn thing apart from mindless contradiction.

[Eric Stevens]

Post by JTEM

Post by Eric Stevens
Something stretched as far as China, but
was it Krakatoa?

Thera/Santorini.
Look. We can make this real simple. Post a
few citations you do believe. Show us what it
is that you're accepting above the cites I
offered.
Do it.
Because, thus far, you haven't offered a
goddamn thing apart from mindless contradiction.

I've raised questions.

I've read a lot on and around this subject. I prefer Mike Baillie's
1628BC date for Santorini but the problem is that dendrochronology has
identified a series of similar events which did affect empires around
the globe - 470 year intervals. It is true that 1628 BC is one of
these events but nobody is suggesting Santorini blew up every 470
years, just like clockwork.

For a start I suggest you read "Exodus to Arthur" Baillie M., Batsford
1999, ISBN 0 7134 8352 0.

You should also try and get hold of the British Archaeological Reports
-S728, 1998. "Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilisations:
Archaeological, geological, astronomical and cultural perspectives"
described at http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/cambproc.htm



Eric Stevens

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Eric Stevens
There is nothing wrong with the basic idea. Its just that,
except as a relatively local event,

....stretching as far as China

Post by Eric Stevens
the case against Santorini has not yet been properly
made IMHO.

The only alternative is to claim coincidences atop
coincidences.

They are not coincidental in time so no one is making such a claim.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
The only alternative is to claim coincidences atop
coincidences.

They are not coincidental in time so no one is making
such a claim.

Ignoring the well established physical evidence,
you're still wrong.

As I told your sockpuppet: You haven't offered a
goddamn thing other than mindless contradiction.
It's time for you to offer some citations. It's time
for you to establish -- once & for all -- what you do
consider "proof."

Got anything other than lies & strawman arguments?

Don't tell us, show us. Put up or shut up.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by JTEM
The only alternative is to claim coincidences atop
coincidences.

They are not coincidental in time so no one is making
such a claim.

Ignoring the well established physical evidence,
you're still wrong.

They are still not coincidental in time so no one is making a claim of
coincidence.

Post by JTEM
As I told your sockpuppet: You haven't offered a
goddamn thing other than mindless contradiction.
It's time for you to offer some citations. It's time
for you to establish -- once & for all -- what you do
consider "proof."

You are required to establish your case against all questioning. You have
failed to do so. You claim people have to "disprove" you which is nonsense. He
who makes the assertion must support the assertion, period.

You have failed.

Post by JTEM
Got anything other than lies & strawman arguments?
Don't tell us, show us. Put up or shut up.

You have never established your imagined collapses of civilizations were at the
same time. Please do so. The ball is in your court. You are not permitted
nebulous references. You must establish them as being within two years of the
year you give as the Thera event. You must first commit to a specific year for
Thera. You have yet to do that.

Please fill in the blanks instead of ranting.

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
But you want a transient Thera some place during
this roughly 17,000 year long process to have
caused the last bit of it. Can you explain why that
is reasonable?

You do know that you're making this all up, and you're
not really in free-fall fantasy.... right?

Not to mention your, um, your "interesting" phrasing....

The Thera/Santorini eruption is tied to abrupt climactic
change as far away as China. Not according to me,
but according to the NASA study I cited earlier. No matter
what Thera/Santorini didn't cause -- no matter how great
a list of events/trends it wasn't responsible for -- you can
not change the fact that it brought on abrupt &
catastrophic changes.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
But you want a transient Thera some place during
this roughly 17,000 year long process to have
caused the last bit of it. Can you explain why that
is reasonable?

You do know that you're making this all up, and you're
not really in free-fall fantasy.... right?

That the present Sahara during the last ice age was forest and grasslands with
lakes and rivers is well known except to you. That we have solid evidence of a
grassland culture herding cattle in the Sahara during the old kingdom period of
Egypt is not in question. So there is a multi-thousand year old drying trend and
Thera causes more drying?

And because there were events in the past of eruptions lasting millions of
years Thera belch was permament. Please describe the mechanism of this
permanence. It must be in the geological record some place. Please recite it.
Not coulds, mights and maybes but the absolute mechanism based upon known
geophysics.

Post by JTEM
Not to mention your, um, your "interesting" phrasing....
The Thera/Santorini eruption is tied to abrupt climactic
change as far away as China. Not according to me,
but according to the NASA study I cited earlier. No matter
what Thera/Santorini didn't cause -- no matter how great
a list of events/trends it wasn't responsible for -- you can
not change the fact that it brought on abrupt &
catastrophic changes.

You have yet to produce any direct evidence of climate change. You have yet to
produce direct evidence of a serious eruption. Where are the inches of ashes in
Palestine?

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
That the present Sahara during the last ice
age was forest and grasslands with lakes
and rivers is well known except to you.

So what you're telling us is that you really are
a moron -- it's not just an act -- and you're just
going to keep gushing strawman arguments
until yor keys wear out.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
That the present Sahara during the last ice
age was forest and grasslands with lakes
and rivers is well known except to you.

So what you're telling us is that you really are
a moron -- it's not just an act -- and you're just
going to keep gushing strawman arguments
until yor keys wear out.

So how do you separate an existing trend from your claims for this event which
failed to leave any physical evidence to support your claims?

[JTEM]

Post by Matt Giwer
So how do you separate an existing trend
from your claims for this event which failed
to leave any physical evidence to support
your claims?

What "Trend"? What are you pretending now?

And why are you claiming that there is no
physical evidence when I supplied several
cites which dealt with that physical evidence?

There is -- pardon the pun -- a mountain of
physical evidence which demonstrates that
Thera/Santorini erupted, and that this eruption
was large even by large-eruption standards.

I also supplied cites that addressed the impact
that such an eruption has on the environment,
including the climate.

Nothing is missing here. Nobody outside of
those who have an attachment to a specific
dating sequence can find any (pardon another
pun) fault. It's all considered established fact
outside the singular example of Thera/Santorini.

Large volcanic eruptions do cause abrupt
changes to the climate. They may be extremely
brief in all but human terms, but that's all you
need to end civilization as we know it. That's
all it took to bring on the collapse of the greatest
civilizations of the ancient world.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by JTEM

Post by Matt Giwer
So how do you separate an existing trend
from your claims for this event which failed
to leave any physical evidence to support
your claims?

What "Trend"? What are you pretending now?
And why are you claiming that there is no
physical evidence when I supplied several
cites which dealt with that physical evidence?

You did not even give a year for Thera. You have not given years for the other
events you talk about.

Physical evidence is ash on the shores of the Med, nothing else.

Post by JTEM
There is -- pardon the pun -- a mountain of
physical evidence which demonstrates that
Thera/Santorini erupted, and that this eruption
was large even by large-eruption standards.

The large is what you have failed to establish by primary evidence.

Post by JTEM
I also supplied cites that addressed the impact
that such an eruption has on the environment,
including the climate.

But you have not produced evidence of changes to the environment or climate
with primary evidence such as pollen and tree rings.

Post by JTEM
Nothing is missing here. Nobody outside of
those who have an attachment to a specific
dating sequence can find any (pardon another
pun) fault. It's all considered established fact
outside the singular example of Thera/Santorini.

Which DATE do you choose to accept? Please state that for the first time.

Post by JTEM
Large volcanic eruptions do cause abrupt
changes to the climate. They may be extremely
brief in all but human terms, but that's all you
need to end civilization as we know it. That's
all it took to bring on the collapse of the greatest
civilizations of the ancient world.

There were no collapses at the same time any place. Velikovsky tried this same
crap and historians laughed at him.

But please be the first, cite the collapses, their dates and the proper
academic citations for those dates. I will be very happy to read it.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:42:21 GMT, Roger Bagula

Post by Roger Bagula

Post by Inger E
First Climate Changes happens

This thread isn't about climate change: ( that is obvious even to
fundamentalist Christians by now)
it is about "Abrupt" climate change that happens when CO2 levels get
high enough.

That's a remarkably positive statement. Do you have any basis for your
certainty? For example can you cite a previous occasion when this has
happened?

Post by Roger Bagula
That ocean currents change so that they don't reach the polar regions
( cycle at a lower level on the globe,north and south)... either of them.
That it has happened in the past and has been the major cause of the
geologically recorded ice ages.
That it seems to be happening now, according to observations by scientists.
That it has happened before and caused trouble with people living all
over the world.
That a lot of very rational people are trying to figure out how to stop
this from happening in the near future.

If you care to search the literature you will find papers giving the
opinions ranging from that the early signs of the loss of the Gulf
Stream are now observable to there is no evidence of significant
change of flow in the Gulf Stream.



Eric Stevens

[Roger Bagula]

Post by Matt Giwer
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml
The ^anti Environmentalist's Handbook
or
The counterinsurgency manual for the Environmental Movement
A Compendium of clean answers to dirty ideas
by Matt Giwer, © 1990, 2005
Nothing of interest has changed in the 16 years since I created
this draft. In fact not even the "in just ten years" timeframe for
major effects to be seen has changed even though it is now sixteen
years later. So what I wrote in 1990 was true about 2000 and is still
true in 2006.

I don't appreciate your politicalization of science.
There are no "commies" or "Republicans" involved here...
Please stop it.

[Peter Alaca]

Post by Roger Bagula
I don't appreciate your politicalization of science.
There are no "commies" or "Republicans" involved here...
Please stop it.

And there is no archaeology involved in your posts.
Please stop it and remove sci.archaeology.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Roger Bagula

Post by Matt Giwer
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml
The ^anti Environmentalist's Handbook
or
The counterinsurgency manual for the Environmental Movement
A Compendium of clean answers to dirty ideas
by Matt Giwer, © 1990, 2005
Nothing of interest has changed in the 16 years since I created
this draft. In fact not even the "in just ten years" timeframe for
major effects to be seen has changed even though it is now sixteen
years later. So what I wrote in 1990 was true about 2000 and is still
true in 2006.

I don't appreciate your politicalization of science.
There are no "commies" or "Republicans" involved here...
Please stop it.

I do not appreciate it either as the entire evironmental movement is
politicizing science.

[JTEM]

Roger Bagula wrote:
[---snip---]

Imagine a private security company that tried to drum
up business by running around the city, breaking into
homes. They then turn around and offer to sell you
their security system in order to protect you from the
rash of break-ins.

You'll have to forgive "Roger" here.

He's, um, "Flooding" groups like alt.history.ancient-egypt
with off topic nonsense like this in order to invent interest
in his discussion group which promises.... it promises to...
um... well, if you submit to his will as moderator he
promises to weed out the kind of crap he's been posting.

[Roger Bagula]

Post by JTEM
[---snip---]
Imagine a private security company that tried to drum
up business by running around the city, breaking into
homes. They then turn around and offer to sell you
their security system in order to protect you from the
rash of break-ins.
You'll have to forgive "Roger" here.
He's, um, "Flooding" groups like alt.history.ancient-egypt
with off topic nonsense like this in order to invent interest
in his discussion group which promises.... it promises to...
um... well, if you submit to his will as moderator he
promises to weed out the kind of crap he's been posting.

Silly and stupid as usual...

[Roger Bagula]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330370,00.html
"BRITAIN has had one of the most volatile climates on earth with up to 10
ice ages forcing early settlers into exile, leaving the land uninhabited
for periods of up to 110,000 years, researchers have found.
A study — led by the Natural History Museum — of 700,000 years of human
attempts to settle in Britain found that the Gulf Stream, which keeps the
British Isles warm, kept collapsing, plunging them into Arctic cold. The
lurches from temperate to freezing sometimes took as little as 10 years,
says Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins in the museum’s
paleontology department, in a new book, Homo Britannicus, to be published
in October. "
This isn't all new, but it is certainly a bit scary. 10 years?!!
Doug
-- Doug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at
http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

So far I've just posted on topic about a problem that goes back 700000 years
by the first post.
It appears to be an important topic for most animal life on the earth.
I'd find some of the extreme anti-intellectual responses
kind of comical, if they weren't also just plain stupid.
Since many of the late responses meet the "animal life "
and not intelligent poster category, I don't
think they deserve response.
I enjoy those who cry "Commie"
to everything environmental when the subject is science and
projections of current behavior of the planet that
is also part of the fossil record and geological record.
Giving a "political" context to hurricanes is really pretty irrational.
Hurricanes are conspiring to make the Republican President look
like an inti-Intellectual incompetent?
The planet is conspiring with the Commies to wipe out animal life by
changing the ocean currents
as observed in the article posted?
Do you realize what crazies you people sound like?
The subject is science...
the current topic:
historical changes in climate patterns
that may be recurring as a pattern
in the near future.
Roger Bagula

post script:
I was just imaginging cavemen going north because they were following
their game as hot weather drove them north,
when suddenly the climate changed
and they we in the middle of blizzards and very cold weather at the
start of an ice age.
They must have thought the gods were consiring against them too.
I doubt they called them "commies".
Nature and science are both devoid of political parties.