Climate change exposed

a reply to: face23785

Great to know your data matches up.

It does. I did a complete write-up a while back on ATS. These are a couple of the graphs I made at the time.


That was all posted in December of 2018. I have continued to accumulate data and thus far I have seen no indication that my original conclusion was in error: that the changes we have experienced are a portion of a generally sinusoidal variation that predates and will likely continue after the Industrial Age, and which has no significant correlation to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bigsnowman

And who, exactly, controls the government, Mr Redneck? Why was Trump so anti-Saudi Arabia when he ran for president, only to roll over as soon as he was elected? I'm sure you remember that his first Secretary of State was the CEO of Exxon

Charismatic individuals obsessed with power, normally. History shows that fairly clearly.

I'm sure you realize that Donald Trump was not in control of anything in any government prior to 2017? You do realize that, correct? You do realize this Global Warming fiasco started in the 1980s?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

Great to know your data matches up.

It does. I did a complete write-up a while back on ATS. These are a couple of the graphs I made at the time.

That was all posted in December of 2018. I have continued to accumulate data and thus far I have seen no indication that my original conclusion was in error: that the changes we have experienced are a portion of a generally sinusoidal variation that predates and will likely continue after the Industrial Age, and which has no significant correlation to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

TheRedneck

LMAO.

You party pooper...

Mucked it all up with your science and undeniable trends...

The thread from 18 you authored should be required reading...

a reply to: MykeNukem



"I gotta be meeeeee... I gotta be meeee...."


TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

If sea levels were rising, wouldn't it be rising everywhere? You do realize that land masses rise and fall? Have you ever heard of erosion?

a reply to: MachineMan

Apparently, from what I can gather from the "science" that is regularly touted, carbon dioxide has this mystical ability to change the gravitational constant in certain areas of space, leading to isolated areas of "sea level rise."

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MachineMan

Apparently, from what I can gather from the "science" that is regularly touted, carbon dioxide has this mystical ability to change the gravitational constant in certain areas of space, leading to isolated areas of "sea level rise."

TheRedneck

Personally I´m more worried about the melting ice resulting in sea desalination, thus causing changes in sea currents than rising of sea levels.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Personally I´m more worried about the melting ice resulting in sea desalination, thus causing changes in sea currents than rising of sea levels.

That is actually one of the precious few arguments that I can see any reason in. Unlike sea level rise, desalinization could potentially become an issue if enough ice melted fast enough. Current shifts can have pretty major effects.

The Gulf Stream never stopped (according to what I know), but it did slow after the Deepwater Horizon accident. That brought some seriously cold winters to this area, as the normal heat transfer was lessened and Gulf high pressure systems became weaker and rarer. That allowed the Jet Stream to take some pretty serious dips for a few years and arctic air masses that were restricted to higher latitudes could make it farther south. That's just the effects I witnessed here; I'm sure other areas had effects as well.

However, such events would be short-lived. Just as the Gulf eventually cleaned itself and allowed the Gulf Stream to return to normal, so meltwater is limited and its effects would likely be temporary. Once the meltwater saturated with salts, a process that would happen rapidly compared to the Deepwater Horizon accident, things would start to return to normal. The ocean is also pretty vast compared to available glacial ice, so even any temporary effects would be limited to specific areas and the currents indigenous to those areas.

In short, while rising temperatures could cause issues over desalinization, they would likely not cause catastrophic issues.

The concern is further minimized when one considers that my analysis indicates we are at least very close to a general maxima so far as the sinusoidal temperature variation that has been misinterpreted to be Global Warming is concerned. We should remain pretty steady for a few years and then start a temperature decline, slowly at first and then faster. I fully expect someone to then claim that we are heading into another Ice Age and the only thing that can save us is to give more power and money to big government.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ever wondered why the russian tundra was a warm paradise before the last ice age while North America was cold? They know this fact as they´ve found frozen mammuts with fresh veggies in their stomach´s, veggies that only grow in warm climates mind you. The same time NA was covered with snow, both are on th same latitude so how come there was such a big a difference? Scientists can´t explain it, my guess is that it was because the warm ocean currents went past Russia and not NA, plain and simple. This could happen again, perhaps this was what Trump was hinting to on the forest fire press conference where he said that California would become "a lot cooler".

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It could have been ocean currents, or it could have been a pole shift. We are used to thinking about the planetary spin as a constant, but it can shift. There is no guarantee that back then Russia and North America were at the same latitude. Continents also drift over time relative to each other.

At one time, the continent of Antarctica was a lush rainforest. That probably didn't happen with just ocean currents. The poles tend to be colder in general due to the angle of the sun. Today, our rainforests are in South/Central America and Africa.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Our atmosphere is constantly changing.
Thats not a theory that is a fact.
Anyone who does not acknowledge this needs to go back to science class.
The sun alone changes our weather.
And the sun itself is constantly going through cycles and changes.
If you know anything about geology you'll also know that there is actual evidence to support the fact the earth goes through cycles of extreme heat and extreme cold.
Need I say more?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It could have been ocean currents, or it could have been a pole shift. We are used to thinking about the planetary spin as a constant, but it can shift. There is no guarantee that back then Russia and North America were at the same latitude. Continents also drift over time relative to each other.

At one time, the continent of Antarctica was a lush rainforest. That probably didn't happen with just ocean currents. The poles tend to be colder in general due to the angle of the sun. Today, our rainforests are in South/Central America and Africa.

TheRedneck

They should have been able to see a pole shift in lava, when it solidifies the lava´s magnetic field is locked according to the magnetic pole.

-MM

originally posted by: kiliker30
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Our atmosphere is constantly changing.
Thats not a theory that is a fact.
Anyone who does not acknowledge this needs to go back to science class.
The sun alone changes our weather.
And the sun itself is constantly going through cycles and changes.
If you know anything about geology you'll also know that there is actual evidence to support the fact the earth goes through cycles of extreme heat and extreme cold.
Need I say more?

No one is denying any of that here, afaik, the divide is if it´s man made changes or not - me personally think it´s not.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

They should have been able to see a pole shift in lava, when it solidifies the lava´s magnetic field is locked according to the magnetic pole.

I wasn't speaking of a magnetic pole shift; that wouldn't change lattitude. The axis the planet rotates on is not fixed. The moon helps stabilize it, but a close flyby of an asteroid can still shift the pole.

A sudden pole shift would be catastrophic and would leave clues in the crust, but a pole shift that resulted from a few centuries of slow adjustment would likely not.

We are undergoing a magnetic shift right now. It happens all the time. It just normally happens slowly so it is not noticeable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Oh, it is certainly natural.
The amount of carbon and co2 that a single volcano emits when erupting is preposterous.
That isn't to say, that humans arnt helping by NOT polluting the air and water and land.
Cuz we are certainly NOT helping.
A blind man could tell you that so whats the real argument here?
It should be obvious to anyone that the climate in this planet changes due to natural processes that are 150% out of our control.
I'm sure humans contribute a percent to it, but on a global scale we can never produce today what mother nature is capable of on her own.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The moon helps stabilize it, but a close flyby of an asteroid can still shift the pole.

Interesting.
So if the moons elliptical plane changes [from a passing comet or astroid] so too does the axis of the earth over time, thus changing the poles orientation?

I'm now intrigued...

If someone could generate a computer model and run it, I bet it'll show the axis rotation of earth and then it stabalize over time along with the moons elliptical plane returning to its original orbit.
Sort of like the moon pulls the earth up or down as it returns to its original orbit.
*shrugs*
Then again I never studied astrophysics so I could be way off lol

Just remember that the same people who are telling you anthropogenically induced climate change is real are also claiming the Earth is a globe, orbits the Sun, is more than 6,000 years old and that kanagroos are real animals Proof if any needed that they are all lying, surely?

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ever wondered why the russian tundra was a warm paradise before the last ice age while North America was cold? They know this fact as they´ve found frozen mammuts with fresh veggies in their stomach´s, veggies that only grow in warm climates mind you. The same time NA was covered with snow, both are on th same latitude so how come there was such a big a difference? Scientists can´t explain it, my guess is that it was because the warm ocean currents went past Russia and not NA, plain and simple. This could happen again, perhaps this was what Trump was hinting to on the forest fire press conference where he said that California would become "a lot cooler".

-MM

Mammoth myths .....

www.geocities.ws...

here's something i find interesting.

the old farmers almanac, type in where your want to check, set date from 1945 to today and see the temperature,

example: pensacola fl sept 30, 1945, Minimum Temperature 75.9 °F. ,Mean Temperature79.6 °F, Maximum Temperature 82.9°F

data for sept 29 or 30 not yet posted, used sept 28th

pensacola fl sept 28, 2020, Minimum Temperature 73.9 °F, Mean Temperature 76.2 °F Maximum Temperature 77.0 °F

it was actually 2 to 5 degrees cooler cooler 70 years later, but isn't that what global warming claims is that it will get cooler and then a ice age. but then climate change folks say that warming causes more and stronger severe tropical storms, which is what we've had the past few years and used all of the names on the list this year, and had to go to greek names.

Weather data collected from the National Climatic Data Center Global Surface Summary of Day. Information from the NCDC may be incomplete. Not every station reports every day, and some stations never report certain values. To learn more about weather station terminology, please consult the Weather Observation Station page of the NCDC.
www.almanac.com...

there use to be a site that went back to the 1850's that showed basically the same for free, then they changed it to 10 years for free, and anything further back you had to pay 5 bucks, then they changed that to the past year and 5 bucks for further back.
now i can't even find it.

things that make you say hmm.

a reply to: kiliker30

So if the moons elliptical plane changes [from a passing comet or astroid] so too does the axis of the earth over time, thus changing the poles orientation?

Hmmm... interesting question. I hadn't actually thought about that. I based my post on two things: the moon, being so large compared to the planet, acts like a type of gyroscope to stabilize planetary rotation much like a spinning gyroscope does, and the actual poles can (and do) shift over time. I suppose it would be quite possible for a pole shift to act as you suggest: a disturbance in the elliptical plane of the moon should actually try to force the planetary axis to a new position commensurate with the forces from the lunar rotation.

Of course, this would take a pretty serious rock flying by pretty close. Not anything I think we need to worry about, but the thought is... interesting...

TheRedneck