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.

 

Earth was Warmer in Medieval Times, Known As -The Medieval Warm Period-

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
The Earth might well be getting warmer due to natural processes at the same time, but that doesn't mean we aren't doing anything to add to it. We definitely are. And the fact that we are doing it while the Earth is naturally warming makes it more important, not less.

The Mediaeval Warm Period definitely happened. We are definitely coming out of the 'Little Ice Age' that lasted around five centuries and only loosened its grip in the late 19th Century. We are re-entering a warm period. Anthropogenic global warming is happening. These facts are not mutually exclusive.

The problem lies in the reality that no scientist can scientifically show how much effect that the fossil fuel-created CO2 is affecting the natural rise because it's damn near impossible to accurately know where we would be naturally. Yes, I understand that it can be estimated, and then subtracted from the current levels, and basically guessed at, but there is nothing that is very scientifically accurate concerning this.

My best response to this problem is that we're not really affecting it that much at all, and definitely not enough to warrant the alarmism and climate accords and proposed and active cap-and-trade schemes going around. My response is based on things similar to this study, that show dramatic and quick rises and falls in CO2 levels over the history of the world when man was not extracting and burning fossil fuels. Knowing that this is possible naturally, it really makes me massively skeptical to the claims that mean ol' man is causing the rise that we're seeing, and that is the basis of the alarmism surrounding the AGW theorist--that man is the main cause of the warming that we've seen since the 19th century.




posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
Demanding an exact figure is taking a page from the disinformation playbook.


Nope, it would be an appropriate response to a group of people who always claim that the science is settled--if it were truly settled, that would mean that we have all of the exact and accurate figures that support the claims of the AGW crowd who generally conclude that man is the main driving factor of temperature increases.

Pretending that it "is taking a page from the disinformation playbook" would be an illogical statement, because when it comes to scientific debate, demanding exact figures--or even remotely provable figures not based on conjecture or educated guesses--is absolutely appropriate. Just because it's inconvenient because you and others can't answer the question does not magically result in it being an attempt at disinformation.
edit on 23-8-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.


Just in case you are wondering rule 10:

Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.


The rules of disinformation have been pisted and discussed on ATS.

The climate threads appear to use them.

Demanding an exact number for how much warming human activity has caused is demanding a complete solution to an extraordinary complex problem.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
The Earth grew hotter for one reason in the Mediaeval period.

The Earth is growing hotter for two reasons today.

Hope this helps.

It doesn't help--scientists still debate the climatic catalysts that caused the MWP, but it's pretty safe to say that it was a combination of many different things coming together, to include solar cycles and volcanic activity, amongst other things.

Modern warming also has a myriad of causes as well...including (to a degree that no one knows for certain) the burning of fossil fuels and the mass farming of livestock.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

This is relatively simple. We can make a pretty good estimation on how much CO2 is released based on petroleum sales.

This figure matches the rise of CO2 we are observing.

Also the C13/C12 ratios also indicate human activity.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Well, if you choose to read what you think that you're seeing instead of what is being written, you would note that what both Seasonal and I are doing is pointing out that, in a field of science that is repeatedly claimed to be "settled science" (many times by you, amongst others), it's inappropriate to claim that when we don't even know how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable only to man.

Coupling that with the penchant that people have of erring on the side of over-inflation when it comes to numbers that look bad for humanity's affect on climate, you can see that it's an appropriate concern to bring up. We aren't demanding a "complete solution" to this aspect of the problem, just pointing out that it is a problem.

But, again, when you read only what you think that you see, we call that confirmation bias, as you've already accused Seasonal of doing with this study in the OP.



Just in case you are wondering rule 10:

...

I wasn't, because your claim is irrelevant to what has been commented on concerning the amount of warming directly attributable by man.


The rules of disinformation have been pisted and discussed on ATS.

The climate threads appear to use them.

Yes, the climate threads appear to use them from both sides, but that's not what is being done here--you are only interpreting it that way.


Demanding an exact number for how much warming human activity has caused is demanding a complete solution to an extraordinary complex problem.

Again, no one demanded anything concerning this, but I will make this demand: Stop claiming that the science surrounding a theory that man is the main driver of modern climate change if scientists can't/won't provide an appropriately accurate number that backs this claim.

What you're basically saying is that it would be inappropriate for someone to demand scientists quantify the amount of man-made global warming in a theory that blames man for global warming.

Are you catching on to the cognitive dissonance, here?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Nevermind, I'm not going to start with you again...
edit on 23-8-2017 by SlapMonkey because: deleted comment



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Modern warming also has a myriad of causes as well...including (to a degree that no one knows for certain) the burning of fossil fuels and the mass farming of livestock.


Yes, this is precisely my point. We are helping to warm the planet, even if we are not sure by how much we are doing so.

The answer to the question "How much warming are humans responsible for?" is not, and cannot be, "zero."



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

I do agree with that, although to expand, it can be minimal or negligible (in relation to the natural rises in levels of things we are measuring).



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I am highly skeptical of your source information, where were their data points collected? It really looks like cherry picked data.
The "Medieval Warm Period" only applies to northern Europe, and is a product of a shift in the north atlantic thermohaline currents.
The medieval warm period was also a rebound response to the AD 530-550? cooling event, that was likely a volcano, but might have had an celestial component, as well
While northern Europe did indeed see a milder climate from the mid 6th cent to the start of he 14th, those mild conditions did not prevail for the rest of the planet. And, as the climate shifted back, the local climate of northern europe collapsed, in the late 13th through the early 14th.
Starting in the 1290's through 1320's ish, Germany and the low countries experienced seasonal deluges, that killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions in devastating floods. The overall climate got so bad that it rained on the grain crops for 10 years in a row, causing massive starvation among a population that ballooned, just as the norse had, during the warm period.
You Know those Brothers Grimm stories about witches eating children and anthropomorphic wolves and the like, they have their origins in the extreme social upheaval that befell many of the rural people.
Funny thing is, while Europe was basking in balmy weather, many parts of North America, experienced severe droughts and coooling temps.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I do agree with that, although to expand, it can be minimal or negligible (in relation to the natural rises in levels of things we are measuring).


It's as unlikely to be minimal or negligible as it is to be so serious that it will turn the Earth into an uninhabitable Hell like Venus. Neither is a realistic option. The truth lies somewhere in between.

We are doing it; we don't know how serious it is; and we aren't sure of all the direct and indirect consequences.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
It's as unlikely to be minimal or negligible as it is to be so serious that it will turn the Earth into an uninhabitable Hell like Venus. Neither is a realistic option. The truth lies somewhere in between.

We are doing it; we don't know how serious it is; and we aren't sure of all the direct and indirect consequences.

Well, to be fair to me, I didn't say that "minimal or negligible" was the probability, just a possibility. I agree with you, though--the truth lies somewhere in between. "Luckily," though, we as a nation have done a pretty good job making our pollution and CO2 contributions much lower than when efforts to do so began, but the problem lies with countries unwilling to try. And to get even more intimate, I think that it's not even countries that can do the most, but individuals around the world who actively try to be better stewards of their local environments.

But to get to the point, the section of your comment that I bolded concerns me both ways--sure, we could be doing more damage that I'm willing to accept, but at the same time, trying to do too many countermeasures trying to "correct" what we assume is man-made additions to CO2 and CH4 could have even worse consequences than just letting what has been done take its course.

It's a tough issue full of unknown catalysts and effects, which is why I err on the side of caution and claim that we just don't have enough valid information to assume that we know what's best to do about the net effect of climate change that we're seeing.

I'll have to leave it there, at this point. We seem to agree on a logical approach to the knowns and unknowns, so I'll call that a win.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

According to some theory's the earth has between one and two billion years, some have revised this down to as little as 650 million before the sun has depleted enough of it's hydrogen to have warmed up enough to cause that, of course the atmosphere does play a role but even without the it's ocean's boiled into it's atmosphere and most of the hydrogen that was once locked away in that water boiled off into space Venus would still have been a hot house planet, it's day's for example are about six month's long, it is unique in the inner solar system, indeed the entire solar system in that it's axial rotation is opposite to the other planet's with it's dawn coming in the west and it's evening in the east.

But make no mistake over the next two billion years the Goldilocks zone, the area were liquid water can exist upon a planet's surface will move outward and our planet will get ever closer to the inner boundary and hotter as it does until our planet begin's to bake, our sea's to evaporate into the sky and in about 2.5 to 3 billion years the earth will if left to nature with no artificial intervention to keep it cool like just like Venus does now (with shorter day's and the dawn in the east and evening in the west of course - geographic not magnetic because the magnetic poles do flip every so often).

Human intervention can go either way, we could put up huge shield's, massive satellite array's harvesting solar energy and reducing solar irradiation of our planet keeping it cool as our planet moves toward the inner edge of the Goldilocks's zone or we and indeed natural process such as volcanic activity, asteroid strike's etc can also cause the planet to both cool and heat up before that time is reached by either making the atmosphere trap heat in or indeed reflect it away from the surface of the planet.

The sun has about 4 to 6 billion years being a mid cycle G2 type star left before it actually swell's into a small super giant and eventually dies in a nova, the earth will survive that until it's is inside the the outer atmosphere of the expanding super giant and likely life on the planet will by then have long ceased to be viable anyway except perhaps deep underground.

edit on 23-8-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

So if CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere like you seem to think then why is Venus so damn hot, even hotter than Mercury by several factors?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
It's a tough issue full of unknown catalysts and effects, which is why I err on the side of caution and claim that we just don't have enough valid information to assume that we know what's best to do about the net effect of climate change that we're seeing.

I'll have to leave it there, at this point. We seem to agree on a logical approach to the knowns and unknowns, so I'll call that a win.


OK, so human activity is definitely pumping CO2 into the atmosphere; and atmospheric CO2 definitely creates a greenhouse effect.

But you think it's "erring on the side of caution" to assume that we can safely ignore CO2 emissions?

Surely "erring on the side of caution" means "cut CO2 emissions to the absolute minimum wherever possible"?

Because assuming that we can safely ignore CO2 emissions, when we know that they have a heating effect, is the *exact opposite* of "erring on the side of caution."



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Where did I say ignore anything? Yes, our use of fossil fuels and other things puts greenhouse gasses into the air.

I approach this rather logically--I don't support price-crippling, politicized ideas of how to "fix" climate change, but I don't support doing nothing, either.

Again, I never said anything about ignoring anything--I did, however, imply that there are no dramatic effects directly relatable to man's contribution to climate change, and therefore I see no dire need to knee-jerk (so to speak) react over the past two centuries (being generous) of proper and semi-proper data collection on the topic.

And like I said, I believe that the best approach is to start at the individual, not the government, but let's not twist words and make it seem like I'm ignoring anything. "Erring on the side of caution" can mean a lot of things in a sea of so many unknown variables and catalysts, but I spelled out pretty well exactly what I meant (It follows the part of my comment that you bolded).

No more word twisting, yeah?


edit on 23-8-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I approach this rather logically--I don't support price-crippling, politicized ideas of how to "fix" climate change, but I don't support doing nothing, either.

[snip]

And like I said, I believe that the best approach is to start at the individual, not the government, but let's not twist words and make it seem like I'm ignoring anything. "Erring on the side of caution" can mean a lot of things in a sea of so many unknown variables and catalysts, but I spelled out pretty well exactly what I meant (It follows the part of my comment that you bolded).

No more word twisting, yeah?



No-one is twisting your words... except you.

Here is what you said:


It's a tough issue full of unknown catalysts and effects, which is why I err on the side of caution and claim that we just don't have enough valid information to assume that we know what's best to do about the net effect of climate change that we're seeing.


In plain English, you said you don't know what the best way would be to tackle climate change. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I then pointed out that the only thing that needs doing is for us to cut CO2 emissions. This happens to be objectively true. I also pointed out that this action would be 'erring on the side of caution', whereas what you were proposing would unavoidably lead to doing nothing whatsoever. This also happens to be objectively true.

Now you've segued into some new argument about government interference. In other words you've gone from a matter of atmospheric chemistry to a political point (presumably about the government not impinging on corporate freedom or some such).

I'm not joining you on this evasive exercise. I am staying at the point where you snuck off in the other direction.

The chemistry is not open to debate. Man-made CO2 is driving global warming to an unascertained degree. It is not erring on the side of caution to do nothing. It is erring on the side of caution to cut man-made CO2 emissions.

There is no debate over 'the best way to do this', the answer is to cut CO2 emissions. That's why your remarks about not knowing what to do for the best are just irrelevant. There are quite literally no other options.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Pretty clear really. The philosophy of the Delay & Dolittle public relations department.

Wealth & individual > Environment & community

Tragedy of the commons.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

1) The factory-owners can't be interrupted from their wealth-creation by concerns such as the climate.

2) But conscientious unpaid volunteer effort by a multitude of individuals who share the same concerns can be relied upon to save the planet from the factory-owners' pollution.

Or as Chomsky would have it: "Profit is privatized, pollution is socialised."



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
all i know is that in the last hundred years or so mankind HAS to have impacted on the climate to some degree. there must have been an impact on the natural cycles from the industrial leaps we made over that time.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join