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.

 

How ridiculous is Global Warming?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
One of the reasons that disasters kill so many humans in this time


One of the reasons disasters kill so many is because there ARE so many... take the Tsunami...

A hundred years ago that coast had a few fishing villages... those people knew that when the water receded you run for the hills (as one village did in this one]

Now you have the same beach overcrowded with locals plus thousands of tourist who run out into the receding water to collect the fish and seashells...

We build HUGE cities on known fault lines...
because we know it won't really fall into the sea...

We build houses on loose dirt that wash away when it rains...
because its really peaceful up here...

We build villas on beautiful mountain slopes that just happen to be only slightly dormant volcanoes...
Its such a nice view of the Mediterranean...

We build an entire city 20 feet below sea level and put up a dirt barricade...
Its gonna take a really big storm to cause any problems...

We put housing developments below dams...
because we are so good at building it won't ever break...

And we keep building trailer homes in Tornado Alley...

Humans learn nothing... they are a failed species...




[edit on 9-3-2007 by zorgon]




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
....The increase in temperature is associated with Holocene sea level rise"... You know, the Holocene is the period for the past 10,000-12,000 years after the Ice Age, when temperatures began increasing... Learn how to read please...


Yeah, and it's warming through the sediment at the bottom of the ocean. The sediment was previously permafrost, and the ocean above it is warmer, this occured around 10,000 years ago. The warmth of the ocean above it has passed through the sediment as a wave for thousands of years. Hundreds of meters below the surface sediments are methane hydrates. They suggest the pressure of methane deep in the sediment, released due to the warm wave, is what has caused the formation of pingo-like structures.

Do you think this is causing the warming or something? Paull et al. are interested to see whether this methane is important and how much is being released, whether most was released in one spurt thousands of years ago, or whether it has been slowly released. Either way, methane levels have been fairly constant for almost a decade, which is good news, and were fairly constant for at least thousand years before the industrial revolution.

They are also interested in what ocean warming does to this source of methane hundreds of meters below the ocean floor. It is quite clear why this is important for the future consequences of the current warming trend.



It does not, Hansen tried to erase the Medieval warming period and the Little Ice Age...that does not make his models impressive at all...


You need to find your script, I think this distortion means Mann.

Hansen's model is the one you distort to say his prediction was far from the observed temperature changes, when, in fact, it was actually very close to reality (although he does admit it had a small bit of luck).


Originally posted by Muaddib
"It's too simplistic to say low CO2 was the only cause of the glacial periods" on time scales of millions of years, said Robert Giegengack


I agree.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
You are now recanting from your slip of the fingers about the drastic warming which is talked about in that paper I gave a excerpt and link to, and you do it as if it was something normal, yet I made a mistake with one name and then you claim "I must get my script"...

Is that a slip of your own tongue/fingers and you have been using a script all this time?...

Nevermind your other slips of the tongue/fingers, such as the "tons upon tons, upon tons of CO2 released by mankind".. Never mind that the total trace of CO2 on Earth's atmosphere is 0.0325%...and that mankind's contribution of CO2 from that 0.0325% low percentage is 0.28% (0.0325% being 100 percent).... or the fact that water vapor which constitutes 95% of all trace gases on Earth, CO2 is a trace gas, or that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does, yet people like yourself don't say a peep about that terrible trace gas water vapor, which is worse and more abundant than CO2.....

Perhaps you should be using your script for toilet paper...that's the only thing it is good for.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Zorgon, i don't think anyone in this thread is claiming there is no Climate Change going on..

In fact, before this topic was so popular around here, I was one of the few people talking about it, and saying that people should be moving inland, and having contingency plans to move from coastal areas i fthey can't move outright because of what these Climate Changes would do.

I used to think mankind could have a small role on Climate Change, but after doing a lot more research, i realized other factors are causing these changes. Factors which mankind has no control over.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are now recanting from your slip of the fingers about the drastic warming which is talked about in that paper I gave a excerpt and link to, and you do it as if it was something normal, yet I made a mistake with one name and then you claim "I must get my script"...

Is that a slip of your own tongue/fingers and you have been using a script all this time?...


You'll have to be clearer what you are talking about here.


Nevermind your other slips of the tongue/fingers, such as the "tons upon tons, upon tons of CO2 released by mankind".. Never mind that the total trace of CO2 on Earth's atmosphere is 0.0325%...and that mankind's contribution of CO2 from that 0.0325% low percentage is 0.28% (0.0325% being 100 percent).... or the fact that water vapor which constitutes 95% of all trace gases on Earth, CO2 is a trace gas, or that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does, yet people like yourself don't say a peep about that terrible trace gas water vapor, which is worse and more abundant than CO2.....


And just a few micrograms of '___' that affects serotonin can send a brain full of serotonin on one hell of a trip. It not about the small percentages but the effect of these percentages.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I'm thinking Canada may want to tighten their immigration policies. Canada is looking more and more like a good place to live. ...maybe Alaska. No wonder they wanted to build that bridge!



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
..............
And just a few micrograms of '___' that affects serotonin can send a brain full of serotonin on one hell of a trip. It not about the small percentages but the effect of these percentages.


Perhaps you haven't noticed but we are not interested in drug use....or at least i am not... The Earth is not a human body...

I wonder why is it that you can't play around with the "real numbers"....


[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Perhaps you haven't noticed but we are not interested in drug use....or at least i am not... The Earth is not a human body...

I wonder why is it that you can't play around with the "real numbers"....

I 'play around' with real numbers all the time, data analysis and statistics is part of my 'game'.

You are just aiming for obfuscation. The point of the '___' analogy was to show that even small things can have big effects, the earth, like the human body, is a balance of different variables. When you upset the balance, there will be effects.

That is what we have done, and no amount of obfuscation from you will hide it.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Could someone please just explain to me just one time, what evidence is there that increasing CO2 levels form any source are causing warming when:

Correlation coefficient between temperature and CO2 levels is below any scientific conventions for decision making.

CO2 has always and continues to lag temperature. It is a result not a cause.

Frankly, beyond this point, there is little to dispute.

Although the IPCC gives the sun almost no creedance for causing the warming and has little or no understanding of ENSO cycles, How come a supposedly know nothing can look at solar cycles and predict the last 3 ENSO events? Why does the scientific community refuse to acknowledge that the sun is not made of hydrogen. They figured that out before WWII but switched back to H while they were working on the "Bomb". The sun is composed of Fe, O, Ni, Si, Mg, S and Ca all even numbered elements. This has been verified by radio telescopes and special filters which shows a "solid" surface below the photosphere. The important part of this is that a Hydrogen fusion furnace would be stable. An Iron Sun is not. I would account for the variation we see. It can all be seen in the cradle of the nuclides. The US government is spending millions right now to develop neutron rich unstable isotopes when the information is right in front of them. My proof of all this is cause I said so. Every time I cite a reference some idiot attacts them on a personnal basis so accept it or not. Not my problem. This the $550Trillion question.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CradleoftheNuclides
Could someone please just explain to me just one time, what evidence is there that increasing CO2 levels form any source are causing warming when:

Correlation coefficient between temperature and CO2 levels is below any scientific conventions for decision making.


What r value is the scientific convention for decision-making?

Do you know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Its physical properties will cause warming, it's really that simple. How much warming is what the science is aiming to show.


CO2 has always and continues to lag temperature. It is a result not a cause.


Not this time.

As mentioned above, CO2 is a GG, it will cause warming. You cannot deny basic physics. GCMs also show how this will affect climate.

On the geological time scale we have introduced a massive amount of CO2, it is higher than anything seen for at least 600,000 years, probably much longer. The amounts we have emitted normally takes 5000 years to be produced during glacial cycles.

Now, yeah, in the past we suggest there to have been a change in orbital variations that massively increases temps that leads to an increase in CO2 800 years later. This CO2 is a result of those changes, this then causes more warming, more CO2 etc. This CO2 is probably from oceans and land sources. These changes have never been much over 300ppm and last 5000 years, the lag is only 800, thus 4200 years left to account for. It is sometimes difficult to imagine how two things can act together...

However, what you are trying to say is that an increase in CO2 is always a result of a temperature increase 800 years earlier. When did that happen, the MWP is not enough to give us all this CO2? Just because temperature increases can produce CO2 does not mean that CO2 cannot produce temperature increases, to suggest otherwise is a non-sequitur.

You have to overcome the physical properties of CO2. Unless you can refute physics, you'll have a problem.


Although the IPCC gives the sun almost no creedance for causing the warming and has little or no understanding of ENSO cycles, How come a supposedly know nothing can look at solar cycles and predict the last 3 ENSO events?


He was lucky?

Landscheidt:

2003/4 Forecast neutral; observed borderline El Nino (3.4 index) +1 just
2004/5 Forecast La Nina; observed - Weak El Nino -1
2005/6 Forecast Neutral; observed - La Nina -1
2006/7 Forecast El Nino; observed - El Nino +1

www.john-daly.com...

[edit on 10-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I find that relying on science in matters such as these is as unreliable as any other means. However, for me, all the proof I need that Global Warming is a reality that requires action, is in the recent weather events that I have experienced in recent times.

Summer this year started in October and is still going.
Spring started in August last year.
Winter started in April last year.
Autumn was completely missed last year, Summer went straight to Winter.
It has hardly rained for a year, and as a result we are experiencing the worst drought in over 100 years.
When I go outside in the sun, I can feel the sunburn almost immediately.
In the last year I noticed several occasions (around 10) that broke alltime weather records, not just for heat but cold as well.

These are all unusual events, and the frequency of them leaves me in little doubt that Global Warming requires top priority.

I also heard recently that 8 of the 10 hottest years in the last 100 years occurred in the last 10 years.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Do you know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Its physical properties will cause warming, it's really that simple. How much warming is what the science is aiming to show.


Do you know that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does?

Do you know that 95% of trace gases is water vapor?

Do you know what happens during warming events to the water vapor levels? they increase, yet for some reason you and some other scientists want to dismiss those facts.



Originally posted by melatonin
Not this time.


including this time...

Temperatures began increasing since the early 1600s, CO2 levels didn't begin to increase until around the 1860s. Again, CO2 levels lagged this time around 260 years after temperatures began increasing.


Originally posted by melatonin
As mentioned above, CO2 is a GG, it will cause warming. You cannot deny basic physics. GCMs also show how this will affect climate.


and you cannot deny the science and physics which tells us that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 and it is more abundant in the eArth's atmosphere.

You can't either deny the fact that during warming events water vapor levels increase too.

There are several factors which are converging this time around, and those factors play a bigger role at Climate Change, yet you and some other scientists just want to blame mankind for Climate Change.

The only reason the policymakers want to blame mankind for Climate Change is to set up a Global tax system, so they can use taxpayers money to try to stop nature from following it's natural cycle, and at the same time it fills their pockets with more money...

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Do you know that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does?

Do you know that 95% of trace gases is water vapor?

Do you know what happens during warming events to the water vapor levels? they increase, yet for some reason you and some other scientists want to dismiss those facts.


No-one dismisses them, Muaddib. It is only you who believes that.



Temperatures began increasing since the early 1600s, CO2 levels didn't begin to increase until around the 1860s. Again, CO2 levels lagged this time around 260 years after temperatures began increasing.


Wow. So the little bit of warming in the 1600s has produced over 5000 years worth of CO2 in just 100 years. That's amazing.

You're just making this stuff up now. No-one seriously proposes that.


and you cannot deny the science and physics which tells us that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 and it is more abundant in the eArth's atmosphere.


Yeah, you said that before. Difference is this CO2 is human-sourced. We have little effect on water vapour. It is a feedback, not a forcing. It is cycled in 10 days and when removed, will just fill back up in a few weeks.

We could add tonnes of water into the atmosphere tomorrow and it will reach starting equilibrium very quickly. We release CO2 and it hangs around for quite a while longer, about 100 years and causes warming, which causes water vapour and CO2 release, which causes warming etc etc. That's why WV's a feedback.


You can't either deny the fact that during warming events water vapor levels increase too.


It also increases due to human-induced warming.


There are several factors which are converging this time around, and those factors play a bigger role at Climate Change, yet you and some other scientists just want to blame mankind for Climate Change.

The only reason the policymakers want to blame mankind for Climate Change is to set up a Global tax system, so they can use taxpayers money to try to stop nature from following it's natural cycle, and at the same time it fills their pockets with more money...


Yeah, of course, Arrhenius in the 1800s had exactly that planned when he discovered the physical properties of CO2.

What is converging, Muaddib?

It's not solar, research shows it to be pretty insignificant. It's not ISD, that should cause cooling. It's not cosmic rays, they show no trend. It's not water vapour, that's a feedback. Do you mean that human activity is converging? Destruction of the biosphere, trillions of tonnes of CO2 etc etc.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I was writting a response...and without realixzing i went over the 10000 words, which erased the whole damn response...so i will post again tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   
just wondering....

how many of you global warming skeptics are also anti-smoking supporters?

the science behind both are probably as equally credible ya know...

just as the science behind the vaccine that governments are trying to force parents to give their young daughters against a std that may have some connection to cancer.

or the science behind modern day medicine that has half of our population convinced that they can't live without popping pills on a daily basis for the rest of their lives.

how can we pick which ones are "credible" and which ones aren't?

are the drugs that are peddled by the drug companies scrutinized any more than this study was.....obviously the research of votox had quite a bit to be desired of it, didn't it?

for some reason, I get the feeling that the Gods of all sciences are economics and politics.....scientific studies that mesh with the goals of these two are found to be credible, if a study contradicts the goals, well, then it is very, very incredable...



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
i got a .pdf for people who are willing to read a few pages, a sample:

Source(.pdf)

from p6:



The Hockey Stick Curves


On the basis of assumption piled upon assumption, several versions of CO2 “hockey stick curves” were compiled, by combining the distorted proxy ice core data and the recent direct atmospheric CO2 measurements. The authors of such studies claimed that their curves represent the atmospheric CO2 levels during the past 300 years (Neftel et al. 1985, Pearman et al. 1986, Siegenthaler and Oeschger 1987), or the past 10,000 years (in the “Summary for Policymakers”), Figure 1,or even the past 400,000 years (Wolff 2003). They all show low pre-industrial CO2 concentrations, ranging from about 180 to 280 ppmv during the past 400,000 years, and soaring up to about 370 ppmv at the end of the 20th Century. These so-called hockey stick curves were published countless times as a proof of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
They were created by illegitimately mixing the false proxy ice core data with direct measurements in the atmosphere.

However, the worst manipulation was the arbitrary changing of the age of the gas trapped in the upper part of the core, where the pressure changes were less drastic than in the deeper parts. In this part of the core, taken from Siple, Antarctica, the ice was deposited in the year 1890, and the CO2 concentration in it was 328 ppmv (Friedli et al. 1986, Neftel et al. 1985) and not the 290ppmvneeded to prove the man-made warming hypothesis. The same CO2 concentration of 328 ppmv was measured in the air collected directly from the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, 83 years later in 1973 (Boden et al. 1990). So, it was shockingly clear that the preindustrial level of CO2 was the same as in the second half of the 20th Century.

To solve this “problem,” these researchers simply made an ad hoc assumption: The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped!
...




fraudulent as a ninety dollar bill.


PS: GW is NOT an environmentlalists' issue, it's pure media mongering, the hardcore greenies did not start this nonsense afaics.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
For those of you who got your education about global warming from Al Gore's Moore-esqu fictional movie, An Inconvenient Truth, here is the skeptics guide to An Inconvenient Truth.

www.cei.org...

Flame away



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
just wondering....

how many of you global warming skeptics are also anti-smoking supporters?

the science behind both are probably as equally credible ya know...
....................


????....

What sort of an argument is that?... and there is a problem in your statement.

Just because there are people and scientists who disagree that "mankind is responsible for Climate Change, or Global Warming", it doesn't mean everyon believes we are not undergoing Climate Change.....

Climate Change has been happening for 4.2-4.5 billion years on Earth...before mankind ever existed....

BTW, I am not a smoker but i really have no idea what in the world one thing has to do with the other.....



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Wow. So the little bit of warming in the 1600s has produced over 5000 years worth of CO2 in just 100 years. That's amazing.


Little warming?.... I am sure you mean "the little anthropogenic CO2 being released cannot be blamed for Global warming"...when the facts show that warming started 260 years before CO2 levels increased.......



Originally posted by melatonin
You're just making this stuff up now. No-one seriously proposes that.

Really?... so noone proposes that when oceans become warmer more trace gases are released into the atmosphere?....

Funny i remember at least three dozen research papers and articles which prove you wrong.....


Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, you said that before. Difference is this CO2 is human-sourced. We have little effect on water vapour. It is a feedback, not a forcing. It is cycled in 10 days and when removed, will just fill back up in a few weeks.


No matter how you try to paint it an increase in water vapor levels does warm the planet...


SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY

A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.

www.nasa.gov...

Warming on Earth began before CO2 levels were increasing. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, the most abundant at 95% of all greenhouse gases, and it retains twice the amount of heat than CO2.

The total amount of CO2 on Earth is 0.0375%...yet we are being warned that it is this greenhouse gas the "main factor for bringing Climate Change"...



Originally posted by melatonin
It also increases due to human-induced warming.


Except as i have demonstrated a dozen times temperatures began increasing 260 years before CO2 levels increased.....



Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, of course, Arrhenius in the 1800s had exactly that planned when he discovered the physical properties of CO2.


and the so called "scientific concensus" has been proven wrong time and again...



Originally posted by melatonin
What is converging, Muaddib?

It's not solar, research shows it to be pretty insignificant. It's not ISD, that should cause cooling. It's not cosmic rays, they show no trend. It's not water vapour, that's a feedback. Do you mean that human activity is converging? Destruction of the biosphere, trillions of tonnes of CO2 etc etc.


Again, you are trying to separate all natural factors, you are not dealing with children here melatonin... and you are now claiming mankind has released "trillion of tons of CO2"?....


Anyways, the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1845, and it is now 10% weaker in most parts and 30% weaker in other parts of the world.

The sun's activity increases in the past 60 years more than during the last 8,000 years.

Temperatures began increasing before CO2 levels increased, the warming of the oceans which has been linked to "Holocene warming"...which is warming as we have been coming out of an Ice Age, and not because of anthropogenic CO2....

Even thou some people want to dismiss the fact that charged particles from interstellar clouds do cause dynamic changes in the solar system...and BTW, I just found another excellent link which corroborates what i have been saying..

here is the most interesting part.


"We're surrounded by hot gas," Zank notes. "As our sun moves through extremely 'empty' or low-density interstellar space, the solar wind produces a protective bubble -- the heliosphere around our solar system, which allows life to flourish on Earth. Unfortunately, we could bump into a small cloud at any time, and we probably won't see it coming. Without the heliosphere, neutral hydrogen would interact with our atmosphere, possibly producing catastrophic climate changes, while our exposure to deadly cosmic radiation in the form of very high-energy cosmic rays would increase."
........
"Space," Zank notes, "is full of clouds." One particularly troublesome cloud region, located in a star-forming region towards the Aquila Rift, clearly is headed our way, according to Zank. Pushed by galactic wind, the cloud may collide with Earth's protective bubble within the next 50,000 years, he says, and some researchers think we could encounter fluffier knots of gas -- containing 10 to 100 particles per cubic inch of space -- far sooner. Our immediate or local interstellar environment is chock-full of gas clusters known as the Local Fluff, Zank points out, and existing instruments aren't sensitive enough to detect extremely small clouds. Consequently, Zank says, "We won't know that our heliosphere is collapsing until we see highly elevated levels of neutral hydrogen and cosmic rays, and a hydrogen wall in the vicinity of the outer planets."
............
Undisturbed by clouds, the heliosphere appears to take a breath every 11 years, as fluctuations in solar-wind speeds produce a gentle, arhythmic motion, Zank says. Flowing outward, shock waves push the wall and interstellar boundaries farther into space until at last they break and wane, allowing the boundary to contract. This shifting region between the heliosphere and its boundary may filter hydrogen through a process known as "charge exchange," in which neutral hydrogen and charged particles swap an electron, and so, change identities.

www.xs4all.nl...

The whole article is worth to read.

i have said it before, and I'll say it again. The Solar System, and Earth are not "closed Systems"... We are being bombarded by cosmic rays from the sun during Solar Maximums and being bombarded with cosmic rays and charged particles from interstellar clouds during solar minimuns.

Any changes in the dynamics of the Solar System affects planets with an atmosphere, and including the Sun....

Yet some want to dismiss these facts and try to "blame mankind for everything"...

Anyways, the solar system has encountered such a cloudlet, but NASA among some other agencies are trying to make people think nothing of this...that "it is just dust from space"... and there are people who are believing these lies.

Some are trying to blame mankind to "enforce a global tax system", and to extract money from people in other ways... while at the same giving "hope" to those that don't understand these natural factors that "mankind can save the world"...when we can't stop or mitigate Climate Change".... It has been happening for 4.2 to 4.5 billion years on Earth, and will continue to happen after mankind is gone...

Another interesting article that i found which might explain and corroborates a bit more what I ahve been saying.


The Galactic Environment of the Sun
The heliosphere appears to protect the inner solar system from the vagaries of the interstellar medium
Priscilla Frisch

Pieces of interstellar matter are constantly passing through our solar system. These galactic visitors—atomic particles and bits of dust—flow through interplanetary space and may collide with the major bodies in the solar system—the earth and the other planets. Although each particle is microscopic, their total mass in the solar system is enormous. Indeed, about 98 percent of the gaseous fraction in the heliosphere—the volume of space filled by the solar wind?consists of interstellar material! How do these particles interact with a planet's environment? Do they have a significant impact on a planet's atmosphere? No one knows.
.................
The interstellar cloud currently surrounding the solar system—often referred to as the Local Interstellar Cloud—is warm, tenuous and partially ionized. Like all interstellar clouds, our local cloud is made of dust and gas, with the dust fraction making up about one percent of the cloud's mass. The elemental composition of interstellar clouds is much like that of the sun, about 90 percent hydrogen and 9.99 percent helium. The heavier elements make up the remaining 0.01 percent.

www.americanscientist.org...

Anyways, i have explained several times already all the natural factors which are "converging now" and have not happened for thousands of years, while others have not happened for hundreds of thousands of years, and all these factors affect the climate on Earth, but there are people trying to dismiss these factors, because apparently they think "mankind is more powerful than anything Earth, or the solar system, or even the entire universe can throw at us".....

Again, while curbing pollution is always a good idea, it will never stop or mitigate Climate Change...







[edit on 15-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Little warming?.... I am sure you mean "the little anthropogenic CO2 being released cannot be blamed for Global warming"...when the facts show that warming started 260 years before CO2 levels increased.......

Really?... so noone proposes that when oceans become warmer more trace gases are released into the atmosphere?....

Funny i remember at least three dozen research papers and articles which prove you wrong.....


This line of argument doesn't stand up, and you know it. Before the LIA, we had the MWP, this resulted in minmal CO2 increases. If, as you do, propose the MWP was warmer than now, we would expect a similar CO2, or even larger, spike in a similar period (ca. 300 years with ca. 100ppm increase) after that. We just don't see it.

You argument needs to logically consistent.

What you are trying to argue here is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not predominately human-sourced, which is pretty much a ridiculous statement. Where does the CO2 we produce go?

During normal ice-age cycle a temperature change of a few degrees is associated with around 280-300ppm. We are well above that with an increase at larger rates than before to levels not seen in 650,000 years.


No matter how you try to paint it an increase in water vapor levels does warm the planet...


I never said it doesn't. I said it is a feedback, which it is.


A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.


So, if this is found to be the case, models will need to be adjusted. Still doesn't dismiss the science.


Again, you are trying to separate all natural factors, you are not dealing with children here melatonin... and you are now claiming mankind has released "trillion of tons of CO2"?....


Yeah, should be 'billlions' as I normally say. 24 billion tonnes a year and increasing.


Temperatures began increasing before CO2 levels increased, the warming of the oceans which has been linked to "Holocene warming"...which is warming as we have been coming out of an Ice Age, and not because of anthropogenic CO2....


No, that is your misinterpretation of an article that assessed how the warming from the holocene may have acted as a wave through hundreds of meters of deep sea sediments, formerly permafrost, and formed pongo-like structures.



"We're surrounded by hot gas," Zank notes. "As our sun moves through extremely 'empty' or low-density interstellar space, the solar wind produces a protective bubble -- the heliosphere around our solar system, which allows life to flourish on Earth. Unfortunately, we could bump into a small cloud at any time, and we probably won't see it coming. Without the heliosphere, neutral hydrogen would interact with our atmosphere, possibly producing catastrophic climate changes, while our exposure to deadly cosmic radiation in the form of very high-energy cosmic rays would increase."


And increasing cosmic rays are prosposed to cause the production of more relective clouds, cooling the climate. Neutral hydrogen (monoatomic hydrogen) would likely destroy the ozone layer, ozone is another GG gas, this may well lead to cooling (but this is much more complex). The particulate matter would also lead to cooling.

Seems an ISD is suggested to lead to cooling. Note that all they mention is climate changes. ISD are being associated with 'snowball earth' scenarios, not warming.

www.universetoday.com...

[edit on 15-3-2007 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join