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.

 

ATS Poll: How concerned are you about "Global Warming"?

page: 15
55
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven


These charts are stupid because they unnecessarily hide critical information. Usually they are designed to confuse people.

What?? Showing you the bigger picture is "confusing" to you? Well this is to be expected if your AGW church holds beliefs which are inconsistent with Earth's History.

Vostok Ice Core records doesn't "hide critical information", and you know it. You're just saying that because you need to find a way to defame the evidences.

In the scientific method, facts have priority over theories. Not the other way around. If a theory cannot hold when more facts are presented, and the theory gets "confused", then you shouldn't blame the facts. You should blame the theory.



When is the starting date on that chart for year 0?

(sarcastically): 5000 BC. Okay, seriously: the results of Vostok were published in 2003, and this chart is the result.



Where is this chart from?

Vostok chart
But hey, you just called the Vostok Ice Core Records "stupid". (wink)




posted on May, 20 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
What?? Showing you the bigger picture is "confusing" to you? Well this is to be expected if your AGW church holds beliefs which are inconsistent with Earth's History.

Vostok Ice Core records doesn't "hide critical information", and you know it. You're just saying that because you need to find a way to defame the evidences.

No, I said the chart was stupid because it is missing critical information for literally no reason, chiefly the date of Year 0 and where it comes from - not the data. Year 0 could be any number of dates - when it was made, when the record goes through - anything. This is vital information that is absent. Let's look at it again:

When is Year 0? You claim that it's 2003.

In 2003, we had an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 369.52 ppm at the NOAA observatory. Look at the CO2 concentration on that chart. It claims about 285 ppm. I did find another chart rather similar to yours, though - and it even has some dates in the snapshot:

I'd suggest that Year 0 in your chart is somewhere before the 1850s, just looking at the comparison. See the problem here? There shouldn't be uncertainty as to a very basic thing like the date.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I've double-checked your data, and at least your sources are sound.

Though I need to make more investigations as to the method the NOAA uses to detect CO2. They basically use a cylinder and a infrared laser. They shoot the laser at a detector. If an infrared-absorbing gas is present, the sensor will detect a dimming in the laser beam. They say, CO2 absorbs infrared. But then, so do other gases. Especially with the pollution and hazing we have now.


edit on 21-5-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Robohamster
The natives mentioned the changing of where the sun now rose and set and how they've had to adjust to the changing weather conditions that their ancestors never faced before.


Emphasis mine. How in the world would anything man was doing on Earth impact the location of the sun's rising and setting? Doesn't that native anecdote just scream "natural cyclic change?"


Can't believe I'm just now going thru my reply box. I guess I should have looked over the settings and options much sooner since I was losing track of the threads I replied to (doesn't help that I frequent multiple forums.)

In reply to your bolded emphasis, I was not taking climate change from a man-made perspective, but rather a "climate IS changing regardless of causation" POV. For some reason I've never really taken the term "climate change" as the same as being "global warming", whereas it was said to man-made. That would be my mistake in this case.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Greven

The fact is, it follows a cyclical pattern and it's been doing this since hundred of thousands of years.



Sure, it's warmer than 1800s. But that's conveniently ignoring the rest of Earth's history. It's actually currently colder than all four last interglacial peaks.



Earths million year history is not convenient to us. We should be thinking about what happens in the next couple of hundred or thousand years. That is all we can do at this point. I don't care what the earth looked like at the last ice age. I do care what it will look like in 300 years.




top topics
 
55
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join