It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What do whales know about climate change?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Since I am looking at long term, (more than 100 years) I looked at the ice core samples.


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. And looking at that, for the last thousand years, we have been on a cooling trend. This is why I asked if ice core samples cold be trusted. I just watched a very interesting show about how they take them and what they are looking for.

Based on the evidence I see, and the trends that have taken place in the past, I cannot see how we can look at such a tiny slice of time and try to base anything of value on it. There are so many factors we don't know about that could play parts in this and any one of the ones that weren't entered into the climate models could turn the whole theory upside down.

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.

Thanks for the discussion.




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
good thing we had all that co2 emmissions at 10,500 bc
lol
wink wink nudge nudge

side note
no sunspots and the global temperature is/and will continue dropping like a rock...
sunspots and temperature...just like its been for the last several billion years...before man



Ancient Europeans mysteriously vanished 4,500 years ago

science.nbcnews.com...
i guess that they got out of that little dip on the chart back to nicer temps because their factories were in over production, and they were prolly burning leads gas too


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".[1] 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.[2] 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.

www.princeton.edu...
edit on 8-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Dianec
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.


My point was to show how much the area had changed. The whales used to be in water, now they are in a desert. Our earth had had many changes in the long term. HOWEVER they happened. And it took a long time for that to happen, but we adapted. 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.

If my use of the whales to make this point offended any, I am deeply sorry.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


look at the rise at 10500 bc and tell us man caused that..

likely the whales were in a bay that suddenly due too tectonic action was either flooded by a tsunami or drained by a sudden upheaval
the hill might be explained by the anti erosion effects of a huge pile of whales on a pile of dirt while the water that drove them there receded


edit on 8-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Since I am looking at long term, (more than 100 years) I looked at the ice core samples.
Here is the original source of that chart (which Easterbrook somewhat inexplicably modified).
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Apart from using a single location as an indication of global temperature changes, it's also somewhat odd that he uses an ice layer from around 1855 as "the present", a "present" which is before the rise in temperatures we have been seeing began.
Here is the last data point for GISP2:

Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)

Age Temperature (C)
0.0951409 -31.5913
ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...

So the age of the most recent point is: 0.0951409 * 1,000 = 95 yr BP.

What is the starting point, the "present?"

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.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Easterbrook, using the last data point has decided that 1855 (1950 - 95 = 1855) is the "present." Either that or he doesn't think the last 160 years matter. Either that or he's lying. Either that or he's just really sloppy.


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.
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.
hot-topic.co.nz...


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.
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.

edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


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.
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.


And then no solutions are offered other than increased taxation.
Really?
www.whitehouse.gov...
And tell me, just how much pressure is there for a carbon tax in the US? Or is it just hype from oil and gas producers?

edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Do you have a source for "approved" ice core samples that cover the same time period?

And trust me, I am not being lazy, I am just not sure who in science we can trust. (unless the criteria is a belief in AGW)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Do you have a source for "approved" ice core samples that cover the same time period?
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.


Easterbrook is either stupid, sloppy, or lying to you.
edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



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.

Can this link be trusted?

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.

Is there no chance at all that our temperature might actually start to decline on it's own? History would say otherwise.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


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.


Meaning that existing models are not perfect, not that they are wrong. Climate scientists are quite aware that there is much room for improvement in the models.

A 22º degree spike is dramatic but it occurred at a single location, it is not a global (or even hemispheric) average. That particular spike occurred during what is known as an interstadial period, a period of retreating ice, the ending of the last glacial period.

If, by "correcting itself", you mean the end of the glacial period and the planet became warmer...ok. But that warming was interrupted by a rapid cooling, the Younger Dryas, before things settled down.



Is there no chance at all that our temperature might actually start to decline on it's own? History would say otherwise.
Sure it's possible.
The Sun's output might decline or there may be huge volcanic eruptions that continue for decades. 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)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Phage
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.

There is a lot of data that has yet to be understood.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 




So by the same token, that doesn't mean that the current warming IS caused by human activity. Which is all I am saying.

We don't have detailed information about what was happening on Earth 15,000 years ago. We know climate changed, we don't always know exactly why it changed because we lack a lot of information.

We have very detailed information about what is happening now. The evidence says that the current warming is primarily driven by increasing CO2 levels. The evidence says that human activity is primarily responsible for increasing CO2 levels.


edit on 3/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



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)

link



As I said, if we don't have all the data, how can we be sure of anything? Is it a matter of pride at this point?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
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? The source does not seem to be provided on that page.

Here is the actual data for temperatures at the coring site.
hot-topic.co.nz...
Let's see where the actual "present" shows up on that long period graph:
www.skepticalscience.com...

Oh, here's something else to chew on:
Study shows unprecedented warmth in Arctic
phys.org...

edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Phage
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?


That is an excellent question. Perhaps you can let me know what is "normal".
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?

I seriously don't know. And please, don't take my questions are my trying to discredit you or antagonize. There aren't many members here whom I respect more than yourself.

I am just not ready to accept things because I am told to. As your posts seem to elude, we cannot be 100% sure at this point. (unless I seriously misread your intention.)


edit to add:
Since I apparently cannot find a good chart, could you link to any data set that shows a large time frame of historical data? Something that might include the mini ice age and Medieval warm periods? I don't want to base my opinion on false data, but finding data that is allowed seems not to show what is needed.
edit on 10-3-2014 by network dude because: added question



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


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?
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.
 



Since I apparently cannot find a good chart, could you link to any data set that shows a large time frame of historical data?
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.

I have been pointing out that:
a) Easterbrook falsely claims that the last datapoint represents "the present". It doesn't. The last datapoint in the GISP2 data is from 1855. Temperatures have risen since 1855.

b) C3headlines presents a number of -31º for the "present" without providing a source for that figure. The thing is, there actually is data available for "present" conditions at the location of the core samples which show that the temperature average is actually -28º. That's three degrees warmer than what C3headlines tells us. What is his source?
The actual temperatures at the location are currently higher than the Medieval Warm Period, higher than the Roman Warming, higher than the Minoan Warming, higher than the Holocene Warming, higher than any time in the past 10,000 years.

The Greenland ice cores are not the only evidence that it is now warmer than it has been for many thousands of years. I provided you with other recent research from an entirely different area in the Arctic that this is the case.

Easterbrook apparently didn't understand the data he was looking at (or was lying about it). C3headlines seems to have made up a number for "present" temperatures in Greenland, or at least has not provided a source for it.

edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Plate tectonics can effect climate, but it isn't the other way around.

When we find things like whale fossils on land and that land has been pushed out of the sea by tectonics thousands or millions of years ago the fact that the land is dry there now wasn't a result of climate change. The land is dry because it was pushed out of the sea.

Unfortunately, there are those that do not understand such a basic concept and claim it was an example of climate change. Those people 9 times out of 10 are the same ones who ignore scientific evidence of climate change I imagine it is because they do not have a grasp on the sciences at all. They certainly do not grasp the fact that things above sea level are generally dry.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

network dude
reply to post by Phage
As I said, if we don't have all the data, how can we be sure of anything?

This is an odd rhetorical question.

If your point were correct, economics cannot be known. As it is, economics isn't even replicable in the real world.

In practice, it can be impossible to have all of the relevant data for a particular scientific consensus; hence there is typically uncertainty in the confidence of the conclusion by journal authors. By way of example, consider the flat earth myth.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who lived in ancient Egypt in 276 BC - 195 BC (yeah, 80+ years!), deduced the circumference of the Earth as (we're not totally sure the base value, but we think it's the second) 39,690 km (1.6% error) or 46,620 km (16.3% error). He screwed up a few things in his assumptions; running his calculations again with more accurate modern data gives us 40,074 km (0.16% error).

Oh, and he calculated roughly the distance between the Earth and the Sun... and the 365 days + 1/4... and roughly Sun's circumference. All of this well before all of the data were available to him, since he lived over 2200 years ago.
edit on 19Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:52:02 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

cavtrooper7
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.


Actually, it is a legitimate science and is measurable.
It goes over and above the natural climate change and when one looks at the data you can see that it is indeed humans who are accelerating the effects.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join