It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The ABC's of debating AGW.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:48 AM
About 20,000 years ago then earth lost about a degree of wobble.(95,000 year cycle)

About 5000 years ago it lost about 1/3 of a degree.

These changed the size of the arctic circle making it smaller.

Both caused warming of the earth that is still going on.

There are also minor wobbles like the Chandler Wobble that can change as much as 50 feet. (every 1.5 years)
This wobble is not the same year after year and can vary from 10 feet to 50 feet over the course of several decades.

Then you have to add the Milankovitch Cycles.
That is a mix of eccentricity of earth orbit, Axial Tilt and . Precession

So you have three cycles that can change the climite at 100.000 years 41,000 years and 23,000 years.

Plus we have volcanoes and ocean currents.

Man is a very small part of the problem.

But most people don't know this and this allows the global warmers to stage this scam.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:32 AM
a reply to: amazing

I do not have a problem with the legit research going on. Research should be to examine conditions and determine the cause, if possible, or to present possible causes and a hypothesis.

Too often you see the research begin with an assumption, or half an assumption and then proceed to attempt to find a way to prove that assumption. You see this all the time when the paper focuses on single aspects at the expence of other likely and proven effects.

How many papers that deal with co2 come to conclusions that man is responsible for x% or x amount of heat or forcing? Give those papers a really hard look and you see that they do not take into account proven contributors. Such as variations in water vapor content, oceanic cooling and heating cycles, astronomic cycles.

You absolutely cannot, with as complex a system as climate, leave out contributing factors simply because they do not fit the agenda, and then explain all the phenomena based on greenhouse gas effect. That is misleading at the best!

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in