[Pants-of-dog]

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Sure.

Please refer to the article in the OP and the text you specifically cited discussing biodiversity.

Well, if you want to go the route of cum hoc fallacies, we could pretty well dismiss all climate change research as its all cum hoc, post hoc, or guilty of inductive fallacies.

This charge is ad reductio unless you want to throw out 90% of science.

Which if fine by me actually.

Yes, people have already dicussed how you have already dismissed all science that does not fit with your religious beliefs.

And we already discussed your incorrect ideas about all of science in another thread.

Please Provide evidence for this.

Sure.

Please refer to the article in the OP and the text you specifically cited discussing biodiversity.

I did not say that all did, but the mini ice age is one example, it was fairly rapid and came from an actual warm period.

Others posted charts on this already.

It is faster than most examples, but there are some that have been similarly fast.

The rate of change preceding the LIA is shown by the slope before the dip. Please note that this slope is far gentler than the one preceding 2016.

Thus, the rate of change for the current climate change is far faster.

Because I can read.

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Where did you read this?

There have been many actually:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/sev ... edictions/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-ye ... ing-point/

https://www.aei.org/publication/18-spec ... is-year-2/

The last link is definitely the best.

I see the last link is to the AEI, which grew to prominence in the late 70s because of funding from the oil industry. (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/H ... edom_Trust)

Now it gets money from the Koch brothers. (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/A ... _Institute)

Do you have sources that are not funded by oil?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Sure.

Please refer to the article in the OP and the text you specifically cited discussing biodiversity.

I want specific examples. Please quote them.

The rate of change preceding the LIA is shown by the slope before the dip. Please note that this slope is far gentler than the one preceding 2016.

Thus, the rate of change for the current climate change is far faster.

Source?

Where did you read this?

The article you provided.

I see the last link is to the AEI, which grew to prominence in the late 70s because of funding from the oil industry. (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/H ... edom_Trust)

Now it gets money from the Koch brothers. (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/A ... _Institute)

Do you have sources that are not funded by oil?

Fallacy. Poisoning The Well.

Fake News huh?

[Pants-of-dog]

I want specific examples. Please quote them.

Again, you already have quoted the text.

Source?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The article you provided.

Please quote the text that supports your claim. Thanks.

Fallacy. Poisoning The Well.

Fake News huh?

Well, if you want to address the actual claims, feel free to quote one or several.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Again, you already have quoted the text.

Yeah, and it doesn't support your claims. So you are wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Thanks.

Please Note that the transition from the warm period to the little ice age took around 200 years, and the post-industrial warm period we are in has been going on for 200 years.

Hence, the same.

So you are wrong.

Please quote the text that supports your claim. Thanks.

Again, you have already quoted the text.

And actually, my argument is a negative, not a positive one, so if I say that it does not examine the pre-historic hot-houses, its incumbent upon you to show that they do to counter my claim.

Well, if you want to address the actual claims, feel free to quote one or several.

I already provided the article, you just refused to interact with it by poisoning the well.

So you don't deny its claims then?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, and it doesn't support your claims. So you are wrong.

It does supports my claims.

My claim was that the biodiversity mentioned in the OP text was due to the lack of human impact on the environment and not due to the higher temperatures.

You seemed to be claiming that the biodiversity was due to the higher temperatures.

Thanks.

Please Note that the transition from the warm period to the little ice age took around 200 years, and the post-industrial warm period we are in has been going on for 200 years.

Hence, the same.

So you are wrong.

The cooling period before the LIA started at about 1000 AD, according to the fraph. It hit its lowest point at about 1600 AD. The temperature went from about -0.1 to -0.5.

This is a difference of -0.4 over the course of 600 years. Or, -0.1 every 150 years.

Let us measure the warming after the LIA as the starting point. That is about 1600. Or about 400 years ago. The temperature in 1600 was about -0.5, and is now at 0.8.

This is a difference of 1.3 over the course of 400 years. This is aboit 0.49 every 150 years.

The rate is slightly less than five times as fast.

Again, you have already quoted the text.

And actually, my argument is a negative, not a positive one, so if I say that it does not examine the pre-historic hot-houses, its incumbent upon you to show that they do to counter my claim.

This is the text from the article I quoted:

Climate change will be the fastest-growing cause of species loss in the Americas by midcentury, according to a new set of reports from the leading global organization on ecosystems and biodiversity.

Climate change, alongside factors like land degradation and habitat loss, is emerging as a top threat to wildlife around the globe, the reports suggest. In Africa, it could cause some animals to decline by as much as 50 percent by the end of the century, and up to 90 percent of coral reefs in the Pacific Ocean may bleach or degrade by the year 2050.

The reports, released last week by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), included a sweeping set of biodiversity assessments for four major regions around the world, with contributions from more than 500 experts. A separate report on global land degradation, which was launched yesterday, included more than 100 authors. Both were approved by IPBES’s 129 member states at an ongoing plenary session in Medellín, Colombia.

Please note that nothing in there says that the climate models do not take into account previous hothouse phases.

So, no you have no evidence for your claim.

It seems like you are trying to shift the burden of proof by pretending that you do not need to support your negative claim with evidence becaise it is a negative claim. This seems like a misunderstanding of the oft repeated (but incorrect) idea that you cannot prove a negative.

I already provided the article, you just refused to interact with it by poisoning the well.

So you don't deny its claims then?

Since you have not quoted any of the claims, how am I supposed to discuss them?

[Victoribus Spolia]

My claim was that the biodiversity mentioned in the OP text was due to the lack of human impact on the environment and not due to the higher temperatures.

If your claim was supported in the article, it would be mentioned in the article. Its not.

So you are wrong.

Please show me otherwise by direct quotation; otherwise, your claim will be rightfully dismissed.

The cooling period before the LIA started at about 1000 AD, according to the fraph. It hit its lowest point at about 1600 AD. The temperature went from about -0.1 to -0.5.

This is a difference of -0.4 over the course of 600 years. Or, -0.1 every 150 years.

Let us measure the warming after the LIA as the starting point. That is about 1600. Or about 400 years ago. The temperature in 1600 was about -0.5, and is now at 0.8.

This is a difference of 1.3 over the course of 400 years. This is aboit 0.49 every 150 years.

The rate is slightly less than five times as fast.

Garbage.

Your data contradicts the accepted dates for the medieval warm period. Above you are arguing that the LIA started in A.D. 1000, but how can this be when the MWP started A.D. 950?

Likewised, the accepted overall period for the medieval warm period is A.D. 950-A.D. 1250. The Vikinings colonized greenland during the warm period in the ninth century and had to abandon it in the 15th century because of expanding ice cover.

The little ice age came in two phases; the first from A.D. 1300-A.D. 1500.

Thus, the actual transition from warm period to ice age (climate change) was 50 years.

The first phase of the ice age was less than 200 years total, warmed up again, and then drastically dipped from around A.D. 1600- A.D. 1800.

Thus, we have drastic climatic changes pivoting in spans of only 50-100 years and lasting before another major pivot for sometimes only 200 years.

NOTE: the climatic change from man-made carbon emissions can only be regarded as 200 years since that was all the longer man-made emissions from an industrial society have been a major ecological factor.

1. Regarding The Little Ice Age.

The period can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age.

https://www.eh-resources.org/timeline-middle-ages/

2. Regarding The Medieval Warm Period.

Northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions for the past 2,000 years
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may have been related to other warming events in other regions during that time, including China[1] and other areas,[2][3] lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

3. Regarding the Industrial Age with Corresponds To Our Own Climatic Shift.

The Industrial Age is a period of history that encompasses the changes in economic and social organization that began around 1760 in Great Britain and later in other countries, characterized chiefly by the replacement of hand tools with power-driven machines such as the power loom and the steam engine, and by the concentration of industry in large establishments.[1][2]

While it is commonly believed that the Industrial Age was supplanted by the Information Age in the late 20th century,[3] a view that has become common since the Revolutions of 1989, as of 2013 electric power generation is still based mostly on fossil fuels and much of the Third World economy is still based on manufacturing. Thus it is debatable whether we have left the Industrial Age already or are still in it and in the process of reaching the Information Age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Age

THUS.

You are wrong. The climatic changes have been equally rapid, if not more rapid, and often extending for the same time period.

Please note that nothing in there says that the climate models do not take into account previous hothouse phases.

You are attempting to switch the burden of proof, unless the author explicity makes positive reference or citation to the prehistoric periods, then no research of such can be presumed to have been taken into account. Thats how it works.

NOTE: there is no reference to the prehistoric warm periods in the section you quoted.

Hence, you are wrong.

Please quote the relevant section or make reference to the source they used that accounted for the prehistoric warm periods in their predictions.

Thanks.

Since you have not quoted any of the claims, how am I supposed to discuss them?

I shouldn't have to, you can read can't you?

[Pants-of-dog]

If your claim was supported in the article, it would be mentioned in the article. Its not.

So you are wrong.

Please show me otherwise by direct quotation; otherwise, your claim will be rightfully dismissed.

Feel free to dismiss it.

My claim (that the article associates biodiversity with minimal human impact rather than increased temperatures) has already been supoorted bybthe text you yourself quoted.

More importantly, your claim that there will be more biodiversity in the future is not supported.

Garbage.

Your data contradicts the accepted dates for the medieval warm period. Above you are arguing that the LIA started in A.D. 1000, but how can this be when the MWP started A.D. 950?

Likewised, the accepted overall period for the medieval warm period is A.D. 950-A.D. 1250. The Vikinings colonized greenland during the warm period in the ninth century and had to abandon it in the 15th century because of expanding ice cover.

The little ice age came in two phases; the first from A.D. 1300-A.D. 1500.

Thus, the actual transition from warm period to ice age (climate change) was 50 years.

The first phase of the ice age was less than 200 years total, warmed up again, and then drastically dipped from around A.D. 1600- A.D. 1800.

Thus, we have drastic climatic changes pivoting in spans of only 50-100 years and lasting before another major pivot for sometimes only 200 years.

NOTE: the climatic change from man-made carbon emissions can only be regarded as 200 years since that was all the longer man-made emissions from an industrial society have been a major ecological factor.

1. Regarding The Little Ice Age.



https://www.eh-resources.org/timeline-middle-ages/

2. Regarding The Medieval Warm Period.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

3. Regarding the Industrial Age with Corresponds To Our Own Climatic Shift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Age

THUS.

You are wrong. The climatic changes have been equally rapid, if not more rapid, and often extending for the same time period.

I read the graph. The one I already showed and for which I provided a link.

You also read this graph, and you thanked me for providing the source, so I assume you have no problems with the graph.

Please note that none of the information you have presented here shows that the rate of change for the LIA was as rapid as the current rate of change.

You are attempting to switch the burden of proof, unless the author explicity makes positive reference or citation to the prehistoric periods, then no research of such can be presumed to have been taken into account. Thats how it works.

NOTE: there is no reference to the prehistoric warm periods in the section you quoted.

Hence, you are wrong.

Please quote the relevant section or make reference to the source they used that accounted for the prehistoric warm periods in their predictions.

Thanks.

Please show that the models do not explicity makes positive reference or citation to the prehistoric periods.

Also, please note that the text I cited has nothing to do with the models, so your continued allusions to it make no sense.

I shouldn't have to, you can read can't you?

And you can copy and paste the text that supports your claim.

It is not my job to write out your arguments for you.

Please show me otherwise by direct quotation; otherwise, your claim will be rightfully dismissed.

[Victoribus Spolia]

^

and so we see the result of sea-lioning when confronted with facts.

You can't have a debate with an opponent who doesn't want or know how to actually debate.

[Pants-of-dog]

So no rebuttal. You tend to get aggressive and accuse me of sealioning when I am persistent.

Let us focus on the argument rather than your feelings about my behaviour.

1. ACC will not lead to more biodiversity. I have already presented an article from Scientific American that supports this claim with evidence. Here is another study that links high levels of extinction with rapid changes in climate:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/ge ... m=fulltext

2. The current rate of climate change is unusually fast.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen by 40% in just the past 200 years, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... uestion-6/

3. The models are verified using hindcasting.

During his 1988 congressional testimony, Hansen showed the results of simulations he had performed using the NASA GISS GCM—the very same climate model explored in the EdGCM experiments of the previous section. These simulations included not only historical simulation of past climate changes, but three possible projections of future warming that depended on different possible future fossil fuel utilization scenarios.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/141

More information on model verification can be found here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf

4. Let us look at the first supposed mistake by claimte models, from your first link:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/sev ... edictions/

But the claim in the 1970s was different. We were causing the ice age and bringing the glaciers down on our own heads. Deforestation was going to increase the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface, causing light from the sun to bounce back into space without heating the Earth. Meanwhile, emissions of “particulates,” i.e., smoke from industrial smokestacks, was going to block out the light before it even got here. No, really: Life Magazine in 1970 reported that “by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” That’s funny, I recall the mid-1980s, and the future was so bright, we had to wear shades.

But they didn’t just have a proposed physical mechanism for this catastrophe. They had the evidence of the temperature record, which showed global temperatures generally declining from about 1940 to 1970. Which led to fevered predictions like this one, from UC Davis ecology professor Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

First if all, this is not even a prediction made by the models. The first models were not even being used in the 70s.

Secondly, this hypothesis was not supported by many climatologists.

[B0ycey]

Where is this bumper yield that climate change is promised to deliver?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45317023

[Truth To Power]

The rate of change preceding the LIA is shown by the slope before the dip. Please note that this slope is far gentler than the one preceding 2016.

Please note that that graph, like Mann's original hockey stick graph, is fraudulent. It commingles two different kinds of data, and then pretends their trends are comparable. You will notice that the proxy data that shows modest temperature variation up to the 20th century are elided at the far right of the graph because they CONTINUE to show modest temperature variation through the late 20th century. The proxy data that disprove the CO2 alarmist narrative were simply removed from the graph. The steeply ascending black line at the far right (which is an artifact not of CO2 but of non-CO2 effects such as changes in land use, etc.) represents the instrumental record, which has been extensively falsified to match the CO2 alarmist narrative.

Thus, the rate of change for the current climate change is far faster.

No it's not, because that graph is a fraudulent fabrication, as explained above. Actual climate change is no faster now than in previous Holocene warming periods like the Medieval Optimum, Roman Optimum and Minoan Optimum. It's simply the same cycle, with a little -- currently less than 0.5C, and unlikely ever to exceed 1C -- boost from CO2.

Do you have sources that are not funded by oil?

The fraudulence of YOUR OWN SOURCE is not funded by the oil industry, but it very convincingly refutes you.

[Victoribus Spolia]

More importantly, your claim that there will be more biodiversity in the future is not supported.

Wrong, according to historic precedent, I would be correct. Period.

Please note that none of the information you have presented here shows that the rate of change for the LIA was as rapid as the current rate of change.

Correct.

And you can copy and paste the text that supports your claim.

It is not my job to write out your arguments for you.

Please show me otherwise by direct quotation; otherwise, your claim will be rightfully dismissed.

Its not my responsibility to prove a negative. You gave an article and I accurately stated that it does not discussing past hot-houses.

This is correct; thus, its incumbant upon you to defend your article when it did not account for ACTUAL hot-houses instead of imaginary ones.

You have failed to do so.

Your evidence provided is thus invalid.

Likewise, you have failed to answer @Truth To Power 's objections.

[Pants-of-dog]

Wrong, according to historic precedent, I would be correct. Period.

No, you are still incorrect.

Your own evidence, i.e. the OP article, contradicts your claim.

Correct.

So we agree that your previous claim about the rate of change for the LIA was wrong.

Its not my responsibility to prove a negative. You gave an article and I accurately stated that it does not discussing past hot-houses.

This is correct; thus, its incumbant upon you to defend your article when it did not account for ACTUAL hot-houses instead of imaginary ones.

You have failed to do so.

Your evidence provided is thus invalid.

Likewise, you have failed to answer @Truth To Power 's objections.

Ypur confusion about proving a negative is not a rebuttal. It is an error on your part about how logic works.

Your claim that the models do not explicity makes positive reference or citation to the prehistoric periods is now dismissed as unsupported.

If you are now invoking TTP’s conspiracy theories, please provide evidence for them. Until then, I will ignore this ridiculous argument that TTP always brings up and which I have already addressed with TTP in previous debates.

[Truth To Power]

No, you are still incorrect.

All previous extinction events have been followed by radiation events resulting in increased biodiversity. We can be pretty sure that biodiversity will increase greatly following the current extinction event because we will be the ones creating the new lifeforms.

If you are now invoking TTP’s conspiracy theories,

Disgraceful. So now any identification of propaganda, bogus science, or falsification of climate data by AGW screamers is to be dismissed as a conspiracy theory? That pretty much gives them carte blanche to lie, then, doesn't it?

please provide evidence for them.

The climategate emails proved that at a minimum, an informal international conspiracy to falsify climate research to lend support to AGW-CO2 theory exists.

Until then, I will ignore this ridiculous argument that TTP always brings up

It is fact, and it is becoming harder and harder for AGW propagandists to ignore, dismiss, and ridicule. Thermometer readings can be systematically falsified, but it is harder to alter the satellite photograph proof that arctic sea ice is in fact not decreasing, and the 30-year cyclical decline that coincidentally began around the time the satellites first started photographing the arctic sea ice is over.

and which I have already addressed with TTP in previous debates.

But never successfully.

[Pants-of-dog]

Feel free to provide evidence for your conspiracy theories.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Well @Truth To Power, it looks like @Pants-of-dog couldn't help himself after all.

Let the games begin. I await with great anticipation.

[Truth To Power]

Feel free to provide evidence for your conspiracy theories.

Sorry, a blatant poisoning-the-well fallacy unaccompanied by any factual or logical evidence is not an "argument" I feel any need to address. The climategate emails provided the evidence. You have merely decided to ignore and dismiss it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry, a blatant poisoning-the-well fallacy unaccompanied by any factual or logical evidence is not an "argument" I feel any need to address. The climategate emails provided the evidence. You have merely decided to ignore and dismiss it.

So no evidence.

Well, @Victoribus Spolia, he refuses to support his arguments.

I guess the show will be a short one.

[Sivad]

3. The models are verified using hindcasting.

The models are tuned to the past so hindcasting doesn't verify shit, and all the forecasts from the models have failed. Models are not reliable.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I guess the show will be a short one.

Thanks to @Sivad It appears the show must go on.