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.

 

Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: Sargeras


No it isn't, it warmed much more way faster during the medieval warm period.


Er. no.

Unless you have some data I am not aware of?

The point about modern warming is that it is the fastest we know of. That said, we obviously did not have satellites and weather stations in the past. So we cannot be entirely sure. But there is no evidence of any faster warming.


yes. and we really don't know if what we are seeing now has been seen before, or even worse. There is just a lot we don't know and the only point in bringing that up is to counter the "the science is settled" bull#. I realize most here don't say that, but earlier on, that was the mantra.

We have found Whales in deserts, and deserts in rain forests. And back then, the only option was to adapt, or die. Which is something we should all be looking at now, as opposed to "how can we stop this?"

Miami might fall into the ocean, so start planning a new city with a smarter plan than building 25 feet from the ocean cuz the view is "to die for".




posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Now people are claiming it's at least part of the cause. So, it's not Man made, it's a contribution from Man?

Oh well, everybody thinks they're right.




People have been saying that for a whIle. It is the anti group that creates the strawman of man being 100 % responsible for what we are seeing.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
We have found Whales in deserts, and deserts in rain forests. And back then, the only option was to adapt, or die. Which is something we should all be looking at now, as opposed to "how can we stop this?"



And seashells in Everest

But, of course, the whales died millions of years before the seabed where they fell rose up and became a desert. Or, indeed, became mountains.

Current changes are many degrees faster. But not nearly as extreme.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I think we should all have perked our ears up to the fact that the Rothchild's had changed their portfolio from fossil fuels and claimed it was to save mother earth .Like that family cares for anything other then money . We should have seen the writing on the wall that oil would soon fall to penny's on the dollar and consider that they may be using that to swoop in and make another killing on the market . Nah ...they wouldn't do something like that . But there is that time when they played the market about the war with France .....sarc/not so much :>)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew

No straw man at all . And yes we should look to create alternatives , in fact that seems to have been mans history from burning camel dung to discovering that that black rock we call coal to discovering how to extract oil deposits in deep oceans to fracking to ......??? what will produce our energy needs in the future .But if the world actually warms up we can know that the need to produce will decrease . sounds like a win win to me .



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Now people are claiming it's at least part of the cause. So, it's not Man made, it's a contribution from Man?


No, you just falsely assumed our position was something it's not.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
These thete out increased by degrees in less than a decade.

They were growing wine grapes in England, which still cannot be done to this day.

web.stanford.edu...

Just for a start.

How can you argue a subject you know nothing about?

You mean like yourself?

Stop reading bull# from a former tobacco and now denier lobbyist.

You don't know crap about grapes in England. You read something on the web and thought it was true.
edit on 18Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:36:12 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I see Climate audit has a interesting new piece up

A guest article by Nicholas Lewis
Introduction
Gavin Schmidt has finally provided, at the GISS website, the iRF and ERF forcing values for a doubling of CO2 (F2xCO2) in GISS-E2-R, and related to this has made wholesale corrections to the results of Marvel et al. 2015 (MEA15). He has coupled this with a criticism at RealClimate of my appraisal of MEA15, writing about it “As is usual when people try too hard to delegitimise an approach or a paper, the criticisms tend to be a rag-bag of conceptual points, trivialities and, often, confused mis-readings – so it proves in this case”. Personally, I think this fits better as a description of Gavin Schmidt’s article. It contains multiple mistakes and misconceptions, which I think it worth setting the record straight on.
Corrected values for the forcing from a doubling of CO2 concentration (F2xCO2)
I will start with the one fundamental problem in MEA15 that I identified in my original article about which Gavin Schmidt admits I was right. All the efficacy, TCR and ECS results in MEA15 scale with value of F2xCO2 used. That value varies between the three measures of radiative forcing involved: instantaneous radiative forcing at the tropopause (iRF, or Fi per Hansen et al. 2005); stratospherically-adjusted forcing (Fa per Hansen, RF in IPCC AR5); and effective radiative forcing (Hansen’s Fs). For results involving efficacy to be valid, they must use the same forcing measure when comparing the response to CO2 forcing with that to other forcing agents. MEA15 did not do so.
climateaudit.org...

I really enjoy reading the stuff over there even if I dont understand most of it .The comment section is a very interesting part of the discussion that I wonder if any here are in the pay grade to dare to jump in :>)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
You natural climate change deniers are a real treat to watch. You have continually been made to look foolish by Mother Nature over and over. The clues of very little actual affect by man on temperatures compared to our Sun have been laid all around you, and you still don't WANT to get it as it doesn't fit what you have told to believe. The earth changes we adapt or die.

So, I think you all cannot possibly be thinking it was ever the Sun, is what you people must believe. Stop the trees being cut without a replacement to stop the people pulling oil out of the ground when there is Hydrogen tech I have talked about on here ad nauseam is about the only things we CAN affect that makes sense. Yet, the powers that be think a tax which they get to handle for "special projects' of whatever basis is what they offer. I offer a car that runs on water CASE CLOSED, these leaders don't want it. There is criminality involved in holding us back. I have proven to you about the H2 car that wins 1st place every single time and it is always forgotten shortly after you see the facts posted here.


(post by Decency removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I have looked at hydrogen and was impressed like most about it . My thoughts are about using amperage and not another means to produce the stuff .Years ago the company I worked for took on and sold a welding machine that ran off a cars alternator .In short what it did was convert low amps to high frequency RF signal . It was a neat little system that didnt require large thick cables to burn welding rods that it normally would have .I often pondered the technology used it that thing and wondered if it might be able to be applied to the creation of hydrogen . Up to that point it was about a more efficient cell or at the least one that would produce more H2O per watt . Then I recently came across this guy www.youtube.com... I cant say I understand his stuff but can say that it might be worth looking into as he seems to have found a link to what energy is and what Tesla thought it was .



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
We're in an ice age and the earths climate all the time.

I blame dinosaur farts for that one though.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




What are you trying to prove here?


I hazard to guess to show everyone just how IDIOTIC the 'climate change POLITICAL agenda is'.

Evidence around the world that show the earth's climate has been in a constant state of motion for EONS.

Long before mankind ever got here, and long before his 'industrialization', and long before the US goverment lying it's snip off 'how' it's going to save the planet.

Of course that is when it isn't dropping nukes on places like Japan or testing the in the Pacific Ocean, or detonating them in the upper atmosphere.

Why yes people the 'end is nigh' we must surrender more money, and RIGHTS to the state so they can 'save' us.

What an blooming joke.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
i will throw my opinion in :

anthropomorphic climate changes are dawrfed by historic natural climate changes

chew on that


Sounds tasty.

I dont believe anthropomorphic climate change has peaked yet has it? So we cant make a fair comparison can we?

Maybe we should wait until there are just a few humans left that havent died off living underground. Then we wont be making our current empact. They can wait for all the smoke to clear.

Then they can make the proper comparison. That is if any humans survive at all.

Those dumb scientist when have they ever been right? I mean its only like %95 of them that agree we are causing a huge dangerous spike in global warming.......nothing to worry about because its just a big conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
i will throw my opinion in :

anthropomorphic climate changes are dawrfed by historic natural climate changes

chew on that


Yes, that's absolutely correct.

However, no one is claiming that anthropomorphic climate change is far more severe than any natural one, but rather, that Anthropomorphic climate change is actually occurring, and we can prevent it.


That is a problem, the climate change could VERY WELL BE natural, it seems your minds are UTTERLY made up.

I find that very UNSCIENTIFIC, and problematic, why is it that SCIENTISTS must only focus on the ITS US HUMANS that are doing everything.

That could prove disastrous!



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
That is a problem, the climate change could VERY WELL BE natural, it seems your minds are UTTERLY made up.


Hardly. If you can provide evidence that shows humans are having no affect, then I will change my position immediately.

However, the evidence shows that we are actually having an affect.

This isn't a matter of emotional opinions or egos, you either accept or reject the evidence.


originally posted by: ParasuvO
I find that very UNSCIENTIFIC, and problematic, why is it that SCIENTISTS must only focus on the ITS US HUMANS that are doing everything.


Perhaps because the evidence shows that we are in fact affecting the climate?

Since when do scientists have some weird, unfounded bias against humans and the cause of 'everything' is our fault?

You are making a lot of claims that seem to stem only from some obscure view of science. Perhaps you should begin providing citations to back your claims?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew

More like...

Dinosaurs went extinct, ergo when a species becomes extinct it is not necessarily caused by humans.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: ParasuvO
That is a problem, the climate change could VERY WELL BE natural, it seems your minds are UTTERLY made up.


Hardly. If you can provide evidence that shows humans are having no affect, then I will change my position immediately.

However, the evidence shows that we are actually having an affect.

This isn't a matter of emotional opinions or egos, you either accept or reject the evidence.


originally posted by: ParasuvO
I find that very UNSCIENTIFIC, and problematic, why is it that SCIENTISTS must only focus on the ITS US HUMANS that are doing everything.


Perhaps because the evidence shows that we are in fact affecting the climate?

Since when do scientists have some weird, unfounded bias against humans and the cause of 'everything' is our fault?

You are making a lot of claims that seem to stem only from some obscure view of science. Perhaps you should begin providing citations to back your claims?


There is no credible evidence of anything to do with temperatures changes at all from a strictly scientific standpoint other than some nerdy looking guy on TV telling you a theory, not a law, is settled science. The definition of a theory needs to be reviewed to further understand this and I expect all by know that definition.

In fact the data suggest ANY change we have seen is CLEARLY within the scientific margin of error. I am an Environmental Scientist and I will attempt to explain the margin of error in plain English, which isn't easy to explain a lot of things in science.

Any data from any source generally has a confidence limit of several percentage points. Most data we usually assign 5% error and that is considered acceptable data if the data comes in under 5% when compared to a known standard. For the Temperature range of 100 F that would be 5 degrees and logic says that 5% might be high and we can fudge downward to 2% and that would be 2 F which is less than the observed data change with temperatures I have seen. When the temps start reaching 5 F greater than averages of say the warmest time we know of in modern time we can talk about what drives it. Historical data says when that happens the Earth corrects itself by melting ice that frees up water molecules to make more clouds and start the process of returning to an Ice Age''


Edit to add
Temperature range where i live for a year is going to be 110-130 degrees because it gets down to -10 or lower in the winter of some years -17 being the lowest temp in F in my lifetime and Temps always makes a 100 or more in the summer.


edit on 11-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: Ghost147

I am about to drive home, I will respond back in about an hour and a half.

Long trip out to the boonies where I live.


So about those co2 claims.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What are you trying to prove here? That climate change happened in the past thus it cannot possibly be caused by man in the present? Because there is no correlation whatsoever between those two premises.


Nor is there 100% proof that man is causing this one that is happening now...only causation equals finding and stretching ways for it to equal correlation. Contributing factor? Sure. Cause of? Doubt it.


There is plenty of evidence correlating human activity with the changes now. Just because you don't want to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.




top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join