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.
originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: network dude
I think this image speaks a thousand words. See if you can spot where humans entered the picture.
I'm not sure where you're getting that 0.7º figure from. Are you talking about average global temperature? That's not what the posted chart represents. It shows reconstructed temperatures from a particular location in Greenland. With that in mind it may be more useful to look at what the increase near that location has been. The ten year average is more like 1.44º higher than it was then. Apparently warmer than it was during the Medieval warm period at that location.
But using data from one particular location as indicator that warming has not occurred (as the person who posted the GISP2 graph apparently intended) is not really very convincing, especially when "current warming" is defined as being 159 year ago. Posting that chart was pointless, seeming to imply that warming has not been occurring at an accelerating rate.
Maybe in another 20-30 years the science will get there, but we're no where near a full understanding yet. Thus, should we really be implementing world policies based off of guesstimates and assumptions...?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude
Cycles involving orbital and axial configurations which affect solar insolation, changes in solar irradiance, changes in ocean circulation patterns.
So if there has been significant melting in the past, what caused it? Whale farts possibly?
The argument that, because climate has changed naturally in the past it must mean that the current warming is natural doesn't hold any water. There were natural floods in the past. Does that mean a flood caused by a broken dam is a natural flood?
The factors which led to past warming are not occurring now. What is occurring now is that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. That rise in CO2 levels increases radiative forcing. That increase in forcing increases the amount of heat captured by the atmosphere. The CO2 being released by burning fossil fuels is like that dam.
Our Earth is changing. It has been changing since 4.5 billion years ago. I can only assume it will continue to change. With, or without us.
Does this prove humans aren't doing terrible things to the Earth? nope. But it does shed some light on the global scare tactics that are being used.
Are you sure? Do you know what the US is doing? Planning? Do you know what the EU is doing? Have you seen the new EPA proposals? "They" are actually trying to do something but the noise from those who say there's nothing to worry about (oil) is awfully loud.
They aren't implementing any viable policies... all they're doing is trying to mandate a ponzi tax scheme. How is that going to reduce our emissions ??
Doing nothing is stupid. Doing nothing will cost far more in the long run, not just economically but socially. Unfortunately, doing nothing is human nature. Unfortunately doing something costs money. Unfortunately "What's in it for me and what's it going to cost me" is human nature and human nature is likely to prevail. Preserving our current lifestyle at any long term cost is all important. It's easy to say "It's not my problem", even easier to say "there is no problem." Sitting on your hands is easy.
Two years running.
Antarctic sea ice is quite different from Arctic sea ice (you can read about how it works and why increases in Antarctic sea ice extent are less subject to warming than the Arctic at the NSIDC site), but besides that I guess the loss of ice mass, when taking ice sheets into account, is insignificant.
What is significant is that Antarctica's seasonal cover is also increasing against increasing CO2 atmospheric levels....
Not annual fluctuations, trends. Downward trends. And what happened even 10 thousand years ago is of no concern. It's the next decades that matter.
But in a world that is 4.54 billion years old we are both discussing short term fluctuations.
Did they have satellite data? Did any of it look like this? Because none of those drawings do.
As I have said once before if we go back a little in history we can see arctic growth/shrinkage from people that have mapped the sea ice extant for shipping.