It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ancient Europeans mysteriously vanished 4,500 years ago
The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period roughly spanning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.
The concept became notable after John A. Eddy published a landmark 1976 paper in Science titled "The Maunder Minimum". Astronomers before Eddy had also named the period after the solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851-1928) who studied how sunspot latitudes changed with time. The periods he examined included the second half of the 17th century. Edward Maunder published two papers in 1890 and 1894, and he cited earlier papers written by Gustav Spörer.
Like the Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000-50,000 spots in modern times.
I read the news of this whale graveyard awhile back and all it tells us is that a bunch of whales died of something non-human caused. It doesn't tell us that humans don't cause climate change though. To generalize these findings in such a way is a huge stretch.
Here is the original source of that chart (which Easterbrook somewhat inexplicably modified).
Since I am looking at long term, (more than 100 years) I looked at the ice core samples.
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
Age Temperature (C)
For both GRIP and GISP2, these timescales are in years before present (yr BP) where year 0 refers to northern hemisphere summer of the year 1950 A.D.
Not if you include the past 150 years in the data. I suggest you leave Easterbrook out of the discussion. He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
When you look at it like this, you can see that our warming trend now is somewhat insignificant to what has taken place in the past.
What you have wrong is talking about ash. It is sulfur, in the form of sulfur dioxide gas, which forms the sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere which have a cooling effect on climate.
And isn't SRM based on putting aresols into the upper atmosphere to reduce solar heat? Just like what volcanoes do on a more localized level? If not, please let me know what part of that I have wrong.
A bit of an exaggeration on your part. In any case it's pretty much too late as far as the next 100 years goes in any practical sense.
The political side of this tries to make it look like we will all be dead in 100 years if we don't just accept man caused warming.
And then no solutions are offered other than increased taxation.
My source is the same as that of Easterbrook, the GISP2 data, and I provided the source. That data does not reach "the present". The last data point is 1885. Easterbrook wants you to ignore the past 150 years of warming to make his useless point. Easterbrook wants to place significance on localized (a single location) variations to make his useless point.
Do you have a source for "approved" ice core samples that cover the same time period?
The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors.
If so, then it seems there is some new data that can be used for the climate models. Meaning that existing data may not be right. A 22 degree spike in 50 years? That's a big deal and seemingly a lot more than we are seeing right now. And somehow, over time, it corrected itself.
Sure it's possible.
Is there no chance at all that our temperature might actually start to decline on it's own? History would say otherwise.
That doesn't mean that the current warming is not due to human activity and it doesn't mean that it won't continue unless something different happens. I guess we could just be hopeful about it.edit on 3/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
So by the same token, that doesn't mean that the current warming IS caused by human activity. Which is all I am saying.
Are Modern Temperatures "Unprecedented"? Greenland Ice Core Research Finds They're Not Even Close, U.S. Climate Agency
The UN's IPCC political leaders, bureaucrats and the Climategate scientists have said for years that today's temperatures are "unprecedented." They also claim that all temperatures to the right of the black-dash line on the graph below are natural; and, all temperatures to the left of the black-dash line are unnatural, due to human CO2. The past visible history (as shown) of temperature records makes both these claims flat-out lies. The historical record also indicates that temperatures fluctuate up and down without any relationship to the CO2 level. (click on image to enlarge)
reply to post by network dude
Tell me, what temperature is being used for the "present" on that chart? Where did that figure of -31º come from?
Temperature records, modern as well as reconstructions such as those provided by ice cores. Temperatures have been rising for more than 100 years. The rate of increase has increased in the past 60 years.
We are told the temperature is rising, in fact that is your position, so what is it rising from? What does your side base the rise on?
The data set (GISP2) you have been looking at is fine for what it is, a temperature record for a particular location. I have no argument with what it shows. I have an argument about what your sources have said about it.
Since I apparently cannot find a good chart, could you link to any data set that shows a large time frame of historical data?
reply to post by Phage
As I said, if we don't have all the data, how can we be sure of anything?
It's not a legitimate science ,its a control measure designed to suck treasure from the masses and kill industry.The other planets are changing too.
I agree we shouldn't pollute ourselves but this implementation of policies is ridiculous.