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.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Loam, he is a scientist and has been a scientific advisor for the UN, scientists not always agree with each other
Originally posted by Muaddib
...and there were other links which I gave and corroborate what he has to say. There is a discrepancy between the data given from ice core base time systems and leaf base time systems, and the ice core base time systems have had discrepancies with the geological climatic evidence. Not even those scientists who claim human activity is the main cause for global warming will deny this.
Wagner et al. claim that the concept of relatively stable Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution is falsified by their results. We believe that this conclusion is not justified.
Climate and Environmental Physics: Physics Institute, University of Bern
Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, now that you bring up that according to some scientists in the past 800,000 years that there have been no CO2 readings like today, and knowing that in those 800,000 years we have had "several warming and cooling events some of which have been worse than the one we are currently going through"...what do you think that says about the effects that CO2 have on global warming?.....
Originally posted by Muaddib
It pretty much proves that CO2 does not affect climate as much as we are led to believe by some scientists, that's what it proves.
Originally posted by Muaddib
One more thing, do you think that 370-380 ppmv is the maximum amount of CO2 that has been found on the history of Earth?.... Actually the average would be from 1,000 ppmv to over 2,000 ppmv.
300-million-year Record of CO2 Levels; Uncertainties in Climate Science
Cooler Heads Coalition
June 27, 2001
Cooler Heads Coalition and its website globalwarming.org (www.globalwarming.org...) were revived by Consumer Alert's National Consumer Coalition in April 2004. The website and group were formed in May 6, 1997, "to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific and risk analysis." Consumer Alert and National Consumer Coalition are industry friendly groups that oppose regulations on industry and advocate "free market" consumer solutions.
Source.
300-million-years
Originally posted by Muaddib
The Earth goes through different periods of warming and cooling, somtimes they are rapid and worse, sometimes they take a long time and are mild in comparison to what has happened to the Earth in ancient times.
Originally posted by soficrow
What can we do, as a supposedly intelligent species, to prepare for cataclysmic climate change?
During most of the Mesozoic era (the period from 65 to 259 million years ago), CO2 levels were between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm, with occasional peaks that reached levels higher than 2,000 ppm.
Results from the middle Miocene, a warm period about 10 million years ago, failed to show high CO2 levels. The researchers suggest that the warming may have occurred due to "episodic methane outbursts."
www.globalwarming.org...
The Earth goes through different periods of warming and cooling, somtimes they are rapid and worse, sometimes they take a long time and are mild in comparison to what has happened to the Earth in ancient times.
Originally posted by loam
No they don't. But on this general topic the VAST majority do. Moreover, I still take exception to your assertion that Jaworowski's credentials are comparable to even a fraction of the REAL climatologists who disagree with him.
Originally posted by loam
Finally, am I supposed to be impressed by his connection to the UN? That is hardly a big deal. The fact that he sits on a committee ( UNSCEAR )as an appointee of his native country, Poland, does nothing to bolster his credibility.
Originally posted by loam
I also think it's funny that you think his "experience" on the effects of radiation (the only area he has ever scientifically published in) somehow gives him a unique and superior understanding of the global warming issue.
Originally posted by loam
Yes, well I don't have your posts as the only thing happening in my life. Adressing all of the half-backed falsehoods and spin you introduce into this thread would represent a full time job and I just don't have that kind of time.
Originally posted by loam
BUT, at least your citation of the leaf base time systems conflict is marginally more credible than Jaworowski's. But once again, you seem only interested in cherry picking your science.
Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
John Roach
for National Geographic News
May 11, 2006
Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.
............
The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.
............
But the field might not always be in steady decline, according to a new study appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science. The data show that field strength was relatively stable between 1590 and 1840.
"It now looks as though it happens in steps rather than just one continuous fall," said David Gubbins, an earth scientist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom.
Records and Math
The magnetic field protects Earth from cosmic radiation. In its absence, scientists say, Earth would be subjected to more electrical storms that disrupt power grids and satellite communications (sun storm photos).
Originally posted by loam
Wagner et al. claim that the concept of relatively stable Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution is falsified by their results. We believe that this conclusion is not justified.
Climate and Environmental Physics: Physics Institute, University of Bern
Originally posted by loam
Muaddib, I can't figure out if you're just confused or whether something else is in play...
Originally posted by loam
Originally posted by Muaddib
It pretty much proves that CO2 does not affect climate as much as we are led to believe by some scientists, that's what it proves.
Originally posted by loam
Cooler Heads Coalition????
Originally posted by loam
300-million-years
Think about that.
Originally posted by loam
On that we agree... BUT! Why is it you seem to think that a SINGLE mechanism is responsible for each of those changes????
:shk:
[edit on 7-9-2006 by loam]
Originally posted by rizla
Referring to the first post:
1. The Mars data only goes back to 2002. That is not long enough to make a conclusion.
2. No one understands how the jovian atmosphere works. They don't even understand how the red spot is formed.
3. Pluto. The last nail in the coffin, and I'll quote the article itself:
Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
Space.Com
Originally posted by pavil
Sudden temp climate changes are not uncommon with the changes sometimes taking only a decade or so, none of the previous ones were man made either.
Originally posted by madjamjar
Taken from a newspaper today
"SUN CAN COOL US
Global warming could reverse naturally as the suns activity reduces, scientists claim.
The star constantly produces sunspots - areas of lower temperatures which affect radiated heat
Experts say the number of sunspots is going down, triggering a possible 0.2 degree C drop in the Earths temperature in a decade
It would take 50 years of greenhouse gas curbs to make the same reduction"
No Sunshine for Global Warming Skeptics
Known variations in the sun's total energy output cannot explain recent global warming, say researchers who have reviewed the existing evidence. The judgment, which appears in the September 14 Nature, casts doubt on the claims of some global warming skeptics who have argued that long-term changes in solar output, or luminosity, might be driving the current climate pattern.
The evidence for human-induced global warming is neatly captured in a plot of the planet's reconstructed temperature over the last 1,000 years. The temperature takes a dramatic upswing starting 100 years ago, creating the so-called hockey stick graph. A reasonable question is whether natural changes such as solar activity could have caused or contributed to the upturned blade of that stick, perhaps because the sun's luminosity varies widely over centuries or more. "The question is, were there times in the past when it was equally warm, and the answer is no," says Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He and three colleagues compared the average of a number of temperature reconstructions based on tree rings, ice cores and other data with models of Northern Hemisphere temperature that include different levels of solar variation, from little to a speculatively high amount. In all cases, "what you get out looks very much like the observations" from real samples, he says. "The warming [of the past 100 years] is greater than any in the last 1,000 years."
The consistency meshes with solar physicists' latest understanding of how the sun works, the group notes. The sun's luminosity swings up and down by less than 0.1 percent in accord with an 11-year cycle of sunspots and faculae, bright areas of heightened output [see image above]. This cycle accounts for most of the sun's variability. Recent simulations reinforce the idea that convection inside the sun rapidly smoothes out internal hot spots before their concentrated heat can escape like an upwelling of magma, the researchers note. This inertia allows surface changes to have a discernible effect and explains why no additional sources of variation have been identified so far, they say.
More...
the answer is no," says Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He and three colleagues compared the average of a number of temperature reconstructions based on tree rings, ice cores and other data with models of Northern Hemisphere temperature that include different levels of solar variation, from little to a speculatively high
Originally posted by Muaddib
Loam, the problem is that such studies as the one you provided, do not take into account "everything" that is happening at once in a larger scale...such as the Sun's polarity not flipping completly and allowing more dust and exited particles to enter the solar system, or the Earth's own magnetic field weakening in stages, and it has been weakening once again since the 19th century.... human activity have nothing to do with the sun's magnetic field, nor the Earth's magnetic field. Are you, or any of the scientists you quote trying to say that "mankind can change the Earth's core, or the Sun's core?...
Originally posted by Muaddib
You are obviously a diehard proponent that "mankind must be at fault", the evidence does not say that no matter how much you try to claim the contrary.
Originally posted by Muaddib
I started another thread where according to a new research extreme climate changes were the main drive for civilizations.
The evidence for linked environmental and social change is very strong in the central
Sahara and Egypt, where responses to aridity are evidence in local archaeological
records. While the data fit the hypothesis that social complexity was stimulated by
increased aridity in Mesopotamia, the Indus-Sarasvati region, northern China and coastal
Peru, further field-based research is required in order to link social change explicitly with
environmental change at local scales, for example as represented by individual
settlements. In particular, more high resolution palaeoenvironmental data are required
from these regions in order to establish local trajectories of environmental change that
may be related to local archaeological records.
From his actual research paper...
Originally posted by Muaddib
This is not the first time, nor the last, nor has it been the worse, when climate change has occurred on Earth. Yes, there are activities of mankind that are hurting the environment, and eventually we should be seeking a balance, but this does not mean that mankind is the main drive for global warming when it has happened several times in the past and much worse and faster than the one we are going through.
Originally posted by loam
What are you talking about about? Statements like "...are you, or any of the scientists you quote trying to say that 'mankind can change the Earth's core, or the Sun's core?' is a clear example of your intellectual dishonesty and merits little or no response.
Originally posted by loam
How about addressing the ACTUAL positions made, as opposed to manufacturing ones out of thin air that no one asserts?
Originally posted by loam
............................
The VAST MAJORITY of the science runs against your position, and I do not suffer from your brand of hubris in a manner that forecloses upon investigation of the issue. The only "diehard proponent" I see is you and those who would have the rest of us believe that your superior knowledge and unique understanding of the world render meaningless all else to the contrary.
Originally posted by loam
I saw your thread and intended to respond there. But since you raise it here, I will do so now.
First, let me say that I fail to see what relevance you think *it* has to THIS discussion. Nonetheless...
Originally posted by loam
Once again, I think you seem confused. The absurdity of your next statement demonstrates it:
Originally posted by loam
There is no SINGLE and EXCLUSIVE natural mechanism for climate change.
Originally posted by loam
Some may be fooled by your oversimplifications and armchair-psuedo-science, but I am not.
Originally posted by soficrow
.
Mauddib - Surely you recognize that human activities represent a factor impacting the speed of climate change?!?
I agree that cosmic events are relevant - but disagree if you're saying that such events are the only relevant factors, or that mankind's activities have no impact.
Everything has an effect. It's a systems thing.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by soficrow
.
Mauddib - Surely you recognize that human activities represent a factor impacting the speed of climate change?!?
I agree that cosmic events are relevant - but disagree if you're saying that such events are the only relevant factors, or that mankind's activities have no impact.
Everything has an effect. It's a systems thing.
i used to think that human activities had some factor on climate change, but the more I read the data from several fields, and not just what some "environmentalists" want to claim, the more I realize that although there are human activities which are not benefitial to the environment of a region, that does not mean human activities are the main drive of global warming.
Yes, it is a "systems thing" hence if changes are happening to other planets in the solar system, and even to the sun, the Earth has to change also.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh, I see...so they are not "actual positions made", even though I gave "several links backing those statements I made, just because you don't want them to be?.... indeed....
Originally posted by Muaddib
...so you can change the thread to what "you think should be discussed", or are you going to stay on the topic of this thread?...
Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, intellectual dishonesty comes from someone like yourself claiming that you "are not a diehard believer that mankind is at fault"
Originally posted by Muaddib
...It is mostly "environmentalists" who are trying to claim that mankind is the main cause for global warming, but several scientists from other fields, such as astrophysicists and astronomers, are seeing that changes are happening to the entire solar system, not just Earth. Earth is in the solar system, hence if the solar system is changing, hence the Earth is changing.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Do i know all the anwsers? no, i doubt anyone does,
Originally posted by Muaddib
but I am sorry to tell you that you that there is more evidence to point to the fact that there are other causes for global warming on Earth
Originally posted by Muaddib
...your claim is proven because environmentalists say so"....
Originally posted by Muaddib
It shows that in the past mankind had to stick together to make it through rough times, and we are going to have to do the same, mankind can't do anything to stop global warming.
Originally posted by Muaddib
So according to you it is absurb that the Earth has gone through global warming and global cooling several times in the past, and in some cases the changes have been faster and worse than the one we are going through?.... You are the one confused Loam, and your rethoric is not going to change that fact.
Originally posted by Muaddib
..."the science proves what the environmentalists are claiming, that mankind is the main cause for global warming...oh wait, you did say that even in the last response you made....
Originally posted by Muaddib
...yet you have not been able to dismiss any of the data provided in this thread
Originally posted by Muaddib
...you just resort to rethoric, although you are not the only one who resorts to such tactics.