Climate change caused empire's fall, tree rings reveal

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Then it stands to reason that "Climate Change" is a natural occurrence and not a man made disaster but instead perhaps the earths way to cleanse itself of a population that has grown too big. It stands to reason that all the alarmist cries of stop this or stop that would not change the facts that the earths climate will change despite any efforts to the contrary.

I am not one who buys into "all is well" but I do not buy into the current political strategy of "Climate Change" and that is exactly what this movement has developed into; a political strategy meant to control the people in a way that the people agree to that control.

There was no infrastructure back in the days that the empire failed, at least not with the modern twist we have today and the climate still failed according to your premise, so I cannot accept that today's climate change if there is such a thing is failing because of misdeeds on our part now when we have had a modern infrastructure in place for at least 100 years.

Again, I am not someone to say nothing is wrong, as we certainly could do better as far as stewardship of the earth and its resources but an oil pipeline will not change climate change, an electric car which still uses the same dirty power that a combustible engine does is not going to change the climate.

The changing climate, melting polar caps and stronger storms are simply a cycle in a pattern much older than humans. They had strong storms way back when, some say stronger than what we have experienced today, a natural cycle. Let not the powers who already control too much, control more by using scare tactics to get an even bigger upper hand than they already have. Make a difference where and when you can but do not cower and give in to demands made by individuals whose behavior is far more damaging than anything you or I could cause.

a reply to: punkinworks10

I'll post a link to a free version.

I'll thank you for that.
I wondered if there was more, but the link wasn't for me.... I am a free reader.

originally posted by: DJMSN
The changing climate, melting polar caps and stronger storms are simply a cycle in a pattern much older than humans.

Sure thing..and 3% of climatologists stand firmly behind you.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: DJMSN
The changing climate, melting polar caps and stronger storms are simply a cycle in a pattern much older than humans.

Sure thing..and 3% of climatologists stand firmly behind you.

Right,3%

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: DJMSN
The changing climate, melting polar caps and stronger storms are simply a cycle in a pattern much older than humans.

Sure thing..and 3% of climatologists stand firmly behind you.

Right,3%
en.wikipedia.org...

From your source:

Peer review
As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"' A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: DJMSN
The changing climate, melting polar caps and stronger storms are simply a cycle in a pattern much older than humans.

Sure thing..and 3% of climatologists stand firmly behind you.

Right,3%

en.wikipedia.org...

yeah uh.. that's like 30 scientists including Ian Pilmer who's been debunked.

a reply to: LDragonFire
The central theme to the thread is that this dendrochronological sequence confirms that climate change can happen quick enough to bring down societies at a rate that can easily be considered calamitous. It is not about the 'Politics of Duh'.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

The funny thing is these are the very climate events that prove earths climate is volatile and changes rapidly due to other factors that can't be blamed on mankind.

That does not change the fact that the activities of mankind are currently affecting climate.

But yes, a cometary impact can also affect climate.

Way to go Phage, categorically apply responsibility to mankind being the cause of climate change, while at the same time minimizing the real climate change that would be caused by a catastrophic natural event. At least that's how it reads, please quantify the effect. I'd like to see proof of that fact, not fraudulent science framed by promises of research work, grants and tenure to push the party line. I certainly agree we have to pollute less, but to attribute our insignificant species as the driver of global climate change is a bit preposterous. It's like asking you to carry a few extra hairs on your head, but that it will break your back.

On that tiny little comet issue, let's say a 50 mile comet hits the earth (not outside the realms of possibility) at roughly 45 to 50 miles per second and it has a reasonably solid core, what would Bob and Daryl say from space about the weather? I wonder?

"So Daryl what's the weather like on earth today?"

"Well Bob, it 297 degrees centigrade in the shade, who am I kidding, there is no shade (laughing) and no chance of rain either, at least not for a couple of years. There are no real clouds in the sky, just that beautiful orange glow coming up from the surface hitting the uniform haze of particulate matter. It kind of reminds me, Daryl, of LA in 80's, but with 60's style psychedelic back lighting. Oh and Daryl, we have to let everyone know that there is a fire hazard, everywhere, so let's not go camping down there any time soon, back to you Daryl."

"Thanks Bob and in other news, SUV's and Cow Farts confirmed by scientists (laughing) as the main cause of polar cap melt on Mars and Jupiter losing it's big red spot."

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I'd like to see proof of that fact, not fraudulent science framed by promises of research work, grants and tenure to push the party line

Well that's not true at all. Give me your sources that refute the opinions of an overwhelming number of climatologists and I'll tell you which of the handful of fraudulent-science-for-hire whore houses employs them. Is it your opinion that they don't get paid? Where do you think that money comes from?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

And perhaps more but due to threats and being outcast in the very field they studied to be in they are afraid to speak up. The facts are it is not a "science" everyone agrees on. Weather and climatology in general is not something that we know a lot about, add to that how the oceans, which we know very little about and space, even less, and how a bunch of other factors act together to produce weather, we cannot reach a consensus.

Again I'm ready to make changes to how we do business, its just common sense but I'm not willing to throw in the towel and let some politician or college professor with agendas of their own make whole sale changes to generate taxes and laws based upon a spotty science that has yet to be accepted in their own circles. And since they resort to misleading and outright lies to promote the agenda of climate change it makes me more of a skeptic, and in good company considering the growing list of scientist who so it poppycock.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Way to go Phage, categorically apply responsibility to mankind being the cause of climate change, while at the same time minimizing the real climate change that would be caused by a catastrophic natural event.

Do the words "ironic humor" mean anything to you? But maybe you missed where it is a possibility that an impact was responsible for the dry period.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I'd like to see proof of that fact, not fraudulent science framed by promises of research work, grants and tenure to push the party line

Well that's not true at all. Give me your sources that refute the opinions of an overwhelming number of climatologists and I'll tell you which of the handful of fraudulent-science-for-hire whore houses employs them. Is it your opinion that they don't get paid? Where do you think that money comes from?

Oh please, I have been in the research, product development and engineering fields for almost 40 years and have seen crap like this come and go. Just on ATS alone there is a large body of information evidencing the phallicy (deliberately spelt that way because of how we are expected to be screwed) of anthropogenic global climate change, which includes information from many informed sources. That alone would allow anyone to make rational and intelligent decisions.

To presume that the main driver of this climate change is human in origin is not only preposterous, it's narcissistic, we aren't that important. And during all the AGCC overzealous religious pontification, the sun is always disregarded as the main driver of climate for some ridiculous reason, especially since other planets in our local system are heating up, common denominator, the sun, go figure...

I don't know about you, but when I was in school in the 60's we were taught that the sun changed in volume according to age and eventually, billions of years for now in its death throws it would eventually expand to consume at least the inner three planets, but the change was slow and gradual, apparently a scientific fact, even if I have a lot more training and experience since that antiquated time.

Could the sun have expanded a little, enough to cause increased thermal transfer resulting in "climate change?" I haven't seen anything from NASA saying it has, but that does not mean it has or hasn't, it just means the information is not forthcoming or it's unknown. A few years ago, NASA stated that we were entering an area of space that was a nebula, but what does that mean? Well if true, an increase in thermal conductivity between the sun and all the planets is one potential aspect which seems to have been proven. But what does that mean? More thermal transfer or an increase in efficiency of the transfer of energy between the sun and all of the planets which has also been witnessed, which could account for these changes in climate, or it could be the sun is expanding. The point is that these are huge influences by a source of incredible amounts of energy, not measly little humans.

If you really want sources, I will go about grabbing all the links I can easily find and batch them here, but it really means nothing and anyway, I don't want to "convert" you, I am not like the AGCC priests, think what you want, voice whatever opinions you want, just don't let your actions interfere with my or anyone else's experience of "reality." In a virtual reality construct all actions are predetermined and what will be, will be. If the sun consumes the planet or the "green monster" of AGCC enslaves humanity, neither is a course we can change unless it is meant to be, as we have no control over outcomes, personally or via the mass effect of humanity.

I am not religious as in organized religion, but beware a "pale" horse, it's interesting that the word translated to mean pale actually means green LOL.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Way to go Phage, categorically apply responsibility to mankind being the cause of climate change, while at the same time minimizing the real climate change that would be caused by a catastrophic natural event.

Do the words "ironic humor" mean anything to you? But maybe you missed where it is a possibility that an impact was responsible for the dry period.

Actually, yes it would normally, but I do read what people write and you write quite well, short and generally to the point even if there is quite often some snideness/sarcasm, but I am guilty of that as well ;-) I imagine you get a little perturbed or frustrated when you tell someone to get out of the road or they'll get hit by the approaching car and they turn and look at you and say, "What car?" LOL

To answer, the word "can" means possible, maybe, etc. and in your context it indicates a reductionist quality in the impact or possibility of the subsequent statement. Last time I checked, fact means fact, even though lately it seems AGCC is fully opinion based and that the forced or extorted consensus means fact. In any event, opinion and consensus are not indicators of fact.

Back to AGCC, it has the appearance of being structured as a semi-religious construct. The controllers of AGCC determine the dogma based on their "design for the future" and then give their high priests their opinions. We are to have faith in them because there can be no conflict of interest under their religious dogma, they expound that they are only doing what is right for us and the planet, they continue to rape. The AGCC religion comes complete with bogeymen, just like every other religion, in both cases the heretics are called "deniers." They have a nice story on which to base their dogma, but it is simply not true.

It's pretty funny actually, same old dirty tricks used in every other religion applied to AGCC, but many of us have "grown up." We ask questions, we research, we form our own supposed opinions and we see through this crap.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I haven't seen anything from NASA saying it has, but that does not mean it has or hasn't, it just means the information is not forthcoming or it's unknown.

Thermal transfer? There is no thermal transfer from the Sun, there is electromagnetic radiation. Total solar irradiance hasn't changed enough to account for the rise in temperature.

A few years ago, NASA stated that we were entering an area of space that was a nebula, but what does that mean?

No. They didn't. We entered what is known as "the local fluff" (not a nebula) thousands of years ago. The Solar wind prevents much interstellar material from reaching the inner solar system.

Well if true, an increase in thermal conductivity between the sun and all the planets is one potential aspect which seems to have been proven.

There is no thermal conductivity in space, the few molecules and atomic particles are too far apart to conduct heat. Interplanetary space is a better vacuum that the best laboratory vacuum. The local fluff is a better vacuum than that of interplanetary space. Space is the ultimate thermal insulator.

lasp.colorado.edu...
apod.nasa.gov...
www-ssg.sr.unh.edu...

Uhhh.. since the issue of climate change as we know it is about man-made climate change cause by industrialization, the natural climate change that reportedly caused the collapse of an Egyptian empire is completely irrelevant to the issue of climate change today. For this reason, any political conversation based on this thread is also equally irrelevant.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Its called change and why should I fear it?

The warnings are not meant to generate fear - they're a heads-up for planning. Like being human and not leaving brothers behind to starve and die.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I haven't seen anything from NASA saying it has, but that does not mean it has or hasn't, it just means the information is not forthcoming or it's unknown.

Thermal transfer? There is no thermal transfer from the Sun, there is electromagnetic radiation. Total solar irradiance hasn't changed enough to account for the rise in temperature.

A few years ago, NASA stated that we were entering an area of space that was a nebula, but what does that mean?

No. They didn't. We entered what is known as "the local fluff" (not a nebula) thousands of years ago. The Solar wind prevents much interstellar material from reaching the inner solar system.

Well if true, an increase in thermal conductivity between the sun and all the planets is one potential aspect which seems to have been proven.

There is no thermal conductivity in space.

lasp.colorado.edu...
apod.nasa.gov...
www-ssg.sr.unh.edu...

Call it simply energy transfer then, I certainly realize it is EM energy transmission.

On total solar irradiance: Link people seem to forget these things.

Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.

They've known this since 2003 ;-)

The solar system appears to "corkscrew" through the galaxy and "local fluff" (scientific term?) in a sinusoidal pattern at a right angle to its path through space. That being the case, the sun does not have time to collect all of the matter in its gravity well and "sweep" our path traveling at 12 miles per second, hence, travel through areas of space with greater mass per cubic light year of space will still impact most of the solar system.

As long as there are elementary particles/molecules in space (read nebula or local fluff LOL), there is the potential for an increase in the efficiency of thermal/EM energy transfer. As small as that increase may be, it could still become large enough to create a tipping point.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

They've known this since 2003

We have more data now, 10 more years of it. And, as I said even 0.05 percent per decade is not nearly enough to account for the rise in global temperature.

The solar system appears to "corkscrew" through the galaxy and "local fluff" (scientific term?) in a sinusoidal pattern at a right angle to its path through space. That being the case, the sun does not have time to collect all of the matter in its gravity well and "sweep" our path traveling at 12 miles per second, hence, travel through areas of space with greater mass per cubic light year of space will still impact most of the solar system.

What? The solar wind repels interstellar matter. What does the Sun's gravity well have to do with it? What is your source of information for a corkscrew motion through the local fluff? Not that it matters. We have been in the fluff for thousands of years, the current warming trend is about 100 years old.

As long as there are elementary particles/molecules in space (read nebula or local fluff LOL), there is the potential for an increase in the efficiency of thermal/EM energy transfer.

How does increased interplanetary material increase energy transfer? Particles scatter electromagnetic radiation, they do not concentrate it. That's why the sky is blue, not black, in the daytime.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Way to go Phage, categorically apply responsibility to mankind being the cause of climate change, while at the same time minimizing the real climate change that would be caused by a catastrophic natural event.

Do the words "ironic humor" mean anything to you? But maybe you missed where it is a possibility that an impact was responsible for the dry period.

So we just got done doing a post 7 pages long and is still ongoing for the same topic. The same people defending climate change base it on.

1. Automotive exhaust
2. Human beings
3. Sun
4. C02 Levels
5. Plants not absorbing enough
6. Pollution
7. The industrial age.
8. Earths rotational axis

Sooooo... in egyptian times there were no cars, population was little world wide, they couldn't measure C02 levels, no pollution, and plenty of plants, no industry. And now tree rings show extreme climate change over a short period of time.

Is it just me or is all credibility gone at this point for "Man Made Climate Change"?

And just today the dissension and contention continues among the scientist...

www.thetimes.co.uk...

It is an ongoing science and I for one am not ready to sell the house and live like a caveman 9while TPTB continue to live as always) because of theory. Again there is room for improvement no doubt and I believe we have made advances in recent years toward making the right changes but drastic screams of "500" days left and any thing Al Gore has ever uttered is pure poppycock