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.

 

Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Its the magnetic shift!!!! The shifting is causing weak fields in many areas which expose them to solar radiation - much like sticking your head in a microwave.

The Earth is cooling, but the conondrum is that the field is changing also and causing increased solar radiation to melt ice and effect areas in different ways, especially the weather.




posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
You get a pass tonight. It's late, I have had a hard day in traffic, and I'm a little fuzzy in the head. But I did want to reply ASAP, so feel free to point out any errors.



Well one logical explanation is that the Artic has a larger percentage of ICE exposed to the sea where as the Antartic is a continent with larger amounts of Ice on land, so it is only exposed to one temperature variant more so than the Arctic , this one variant being the atmosphere, where as the Artic gets both the Atmospheric increase as well as more Oceanic, and now Volcanic as you rightly highlight, as causes.

There is no insulation between water, air, and land. Heat in one will conduct to the other, based on the specific heat of the substances in contact. Water has a pretty high specific heat, and therefore requires more heat energy to change its temperature, whereas air has a much lower specific heat and will change temperature rapidly compared to water. The specific heat of land masses varies with their compositions.

In other words, warmer water will tend to raise the temperature of air readily, while it is much harder for warm air to affect water temperature. This is easily demonstrated by an old country practice of using a container of water atop a heater to help heat a home. The warm water, which becomes water vapor as it evaporates, will keep the air warmer longer than a home with dry air, due to the amount of energy contained in the water vapor. This is also why desert locations can become so hot during the day and yet be very cold at night; the dry air cannot store energy as well as moist (water vapor filled) air.

This is also one reason why oceanic temperatures are monitored. They are less subject to minor variations on temperature than air, instead indicating a more average energy level.

CO2 absorption occurs in the atmosphere, not in the oceans. CO2 in the oceans is extremely minimal, due to the interaction of CO2 with hydroxide (OH-) to form a weak carbonic acid solution (HCO3-). Also, UV radiation, which is the energy absorbed by CO2, is not prevalent in the water, since water tends to block it.

So, if the oceans are warming in specific locations, it is highly illogical to assume that it is due to the action of CO2. Heat transfer from air to water is poor due to the specific heat differential, and the 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 in water is minimalized by its solubility properties and lack of available UV energy. Rising air temperatures from water, however, are easily accomplished by the same phenomena: a high ratio of specific heat capacity of the two substances.


CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occuring gas, it is released as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. This is being equally distributed throughout the atmosphere, and it is being observed and measured. World Data for Greenhouse Gases. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is labelled so because it aids in heating the atmosphere....it is not pollution, air born pollutants, or aerosols, would be the particulate matter that we observe as smog in urban enviroments that are also a result of burning fossil fuels or as industrial processes etc. For further reading i suggest you look at this article on Aerosol pollutants.

Thank you! CO2 is indeed not a pollutant. It is also produced when any form of carbon-containing compound is oxidized. That includes much more than simply fossil fuels; it includes all organic fuels as well as all life processes and seismic activity. At this point in history, there are only two potential power sources that produce no CO2: nuclear and hydrogen. I am a proponent of nuclear power (with regulation), and we have not yet developed a safe and efficient method of producing/distributing/consuming hydrogen. I hope this will change.

The point is that whatever gaseous substance is introduced into the atmosphere, it will disperse evenly throughout the atmosphere (with some minor fluctuations due to wind currents of course). If I release a large amount of CO2, NO2, SO2, He, H2, or any gas into the air in Alabama, there will not be a larger concentration observed elsewhere as it dissipates. The largest concentration will be in Alabama at the time of the release. I realize this flies in the face of the article you show, but it is simple dispersion physics. Any good first-year chemistry book will back me up. Aerosol or CO2, it will make no difference in the overall dispersal patterns.


Well how does the volcano theory explain this.

As to the Greenland glaciers, seismic activity can occur on land as well as under the ocean. Volcanoes also can form without the traditional volcanic cone; that cone is a typical geometry created by layers of lava erupting over time, not a volcanic requirement. Since we cannot see underneath the glaciers, it is a distinct possibility that seismic activity could be occurring there as well. I believe the image I linked you to shows oceanic temperature anomalies in an area just off Greenland.

As to the Antarctic ice, I believe you are looking at a tree while ignoring the forest:

Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: www.sciencemag.org...

As with any large area of ice, if the mass increases, there will be areas which collapse due to the slow movement (glacial drift) that accompanies. This is why icebergs are a hazard whenever one navigates close to either pole. The information in my initial post showed an almost total lack of high oceanic temperatures reported in the Antarctic, which would indicate that the temperature is not responsible.

Your own source, www.charlotteobserver.com... , coupled with the specific heat subject above, would seem to dismiss atmospheric warming and implicate oceanic warming as well:

“The Markham Ice Shelf was a big surprise because it suddenly disappeared. We went under cloud for a bit during our research and when the weather cleared up, all of a sudden there was no more ice shelf. It was a shocking event that underscores the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic,” said Mueller.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

As stated above, it would take a huge atmospheric temperature anomaly to impart enough energy into the ice to melt it that rapidly. An increase in water temperature, however, could easily do so, based on the amount of energy water can absorb/release.

As an example, watch after the next snow to see how long it takes warm air (in the shade, of course) to melt the snow away. Then pour warm water (atmospheric temperature) over some and see how long it takes it to melt.


Your link showing anomalous sea temperatures is great. But Unfortunately we would have to also observe anomalous temperature whenever vents are active to see if these vents create these anomalous temperatures everywhere else in the ocean. I am currently looking for more stuff on vents.

We have some information on vents, albeit somewhat inexact. We know, for instance, that venting occurs when seismic activity is present, and we have a relatively good amount of knowledge as to where earthquakes, tremors, and volcanic events have been occurring in recent history. Rather incomplete, I will admit. The ocean floor is still the last frontier for exploration. Still, I see a remarkable correlation between the known seismically active areas and the temperature anomalies.


P.S. On a side not, you might notice in the above highlited quote that the scientists admit that volcanoes contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. Volcanic CO2 is 1% of the volume emitted by Humans, 1%.

There is no doubt that the undersea activity is producing CO2, and there is no doubt that human energy production is greater than volcanic production of CO2 at the present time (although I am not sure of the 1% estimate). But consider this:

CO2 accounts for 385 ppmv of the earth's atmosphere, even after the Industrial Revolution. That is 0.0385% of the gases present in the atmosphere. CO2 absorbs approximately 6% of the UV radiation it encounters (unable tonight to link to a online source for this, but I do know it as fact; it may be in one of my chemistry books). CO2 absorbs UV light only, which accounts for approximately 7-8% of the energy received from the sun.

Most of the radiant energy from the sun is concentrated in the visible and near-visible parts of the spectrum. The narrow band of visible light, between 400 and 700 nm, represents 43% of the total radiant energy emitted. Wavelengths shorter than the visible account for 7 to 8% of the total, but are extremely important because of their high energy per photon. The shorter the wavelength of light, the more energy it contains.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: www.ucar.edu...

So, to calculate, the total CO2 in the atmosphere is capable of absorbing and re-emitting as heat 0.000385 x 0.06 x 0.08 = 0.000001848 = 0.0001848% of the energy received from the sun. That's just not much energy heating the atmosphere, and the calculation is not considering the fact that the solar radiation is concentrated at the equator, not at the poles.

On the other hand, we know there are oceanic temperature anomalies ion the area being discussed. We also know that water has a greater temperature effect on ice than air. We also know that water heats air easily, while air heats water poorly. All in all, I see no reason to conclude that this observed melting has anything to do with CO2 concentrations.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Originally posted by Kryties


You are conveniently skipping over the SEDIMENTRY CORES taken from all the oceans that fully support the ice-core data.
No I did not skip over it. The sedimentary cores along with the Ice cores show a 1500 cycle. I and other believe that this is not the cause of the current warming. You do believe it is the cause, i never said that it did not exist. In an earlier post, this is what you said about the Ice core Data

Originally posted by KrytiesWhile you may have a point about the ice samples, the seabed sedimentary samples cannot be refuted.
I pointed out that as a record it is disappearing, suggesting that this puts it outside the cycle, as the record of the cycle itself is melting away. Why would i need to refute the fact that it is a record, a record you yourself admit seems to be experiencing effects that will melt the very evidence of it being a cycle.
Singer and Avery stated in their Think Tank piece that in the first Greenland Cores taken in 1983 this cycle became evident, they find these same cycles in Antarctica too. Now, if it is a record of cores taken from two continental Ice Glaciers, these glaciers have to have been maintained over the entire period of the history of these cycle, and so recording them. This suggest that the Ices presence is an indicator of the parameters of the cycle, that the Ice in these locations remains. One Question. Why are these Glaciers melting if this is a natural cycle. Surely that would be preserved as per the natural cycle and so record another phase of the cycle.




promoted by a think tank suggesting a 1500 cycle no one else in the scientific community agrees with.

1. You seriously cannot be arrogant enough to believe you speak for the entire scientific community can you?

2. The 1500 year was known about well before the think tank suggested it.
Feast your eyes on these two examples (there are many more but I am trying to save space...
I have found no scientific material agreeing with Avery and Singers Think tank piece. Read my statement. I agree that i could have phrased it better, but i specifically mention your think tank piece. If you would like to link other sources relating to the claims of the think tank from scientist reviewing the claims, then please do so.

I attacked Avery and Singers claims that the cycle was causing GW, and that the scientific community does not agree, you then post another source that was supposed to refute my claims, but in facts supports it. Thanks. Here it is for you, your source, arguing against you.

Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores
ScienceDaily (Nov. 14, 1997) — Earth's climate cools significantly and abruptly every 1,500 years or so in a persistent, regular rhythm, a team led by scientists at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory reports in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Science.

The earth cools in this examination of the Cores. Not warms as per Avery and Singers think tank piece. I know you may be more focused on a comment regarding the scientific community, but your own evidence supports my original comment that this community does not support your think tank piece. Your attack on my perceived arrogance is misdirected and a result of your ignorance in relation to your own sources.



3. I do not set out to 'shoot down' peoples posts. That is NOT the way science is conducted.
You have offered nothing but think tank pieces to support you claim that the current observed GW is part of a natural Cycle.. The article that you do present that is from Science Daily, argues against you view, and agrees with me. Perhaps my ad-hoc term "Shoot-down" posts should not be confused with how science works as I shot down a Think Tank piece, a petition whose premise has nothing to do with GW claims and Core Sample that other scientists believe do not point to Warming, but Cooling. The fact that you are again attacking me via semantics and behaviour only shows you cannot address the questions I have continuously asked you.



Please refute the empirical evidence supporting Anthropogenic Warming. Please Point out in your "cycles" where we observe Human Activity that matches current trends so as to dismiss these current trends as typical to past cycles. Your sources and mountains of Info are Junk and you know it. Otherwise you would have shot my posts down earlier, you haven't.


I'm not going to play your 'let's crucify people' game. The evidence I have presented speaks for itself and also, by it's very nature, refutes your argument.

This is because you cannot do the above. Earlier you stated that this was a debate. I have repeatedly debated the evidence you supply, you have still not done this for mine.
Where have i crucified anyone. Your melodramatics are amusing.


No you have not. You have even astounded me by some of your responses, as if you do not even understand what you are reading. I have not pointed this out until now though because I am neither vindictive nor bullyish.
LOL, please, you have pointed out nothing, all you do is complain. More baseless claims from you. Vindictive or Bullying? How about you review the evidence i have asked you to look at, and show me where it is wrong, like i have with yours(which this post is more evidence off).




Once again this is not a 'crucify the opposition' game like you so badly seem to want it to be. I am done with this. I am off to find a thread where we can debate science in a respectful, non-crucification manner.
The only game i have played is one where i present my sources that support my argument, while reviewing that which is presented by others. An example of this can be found throughout the thread. Look at my replies to Yourself and Member Redneck posts. You have not done this. Once again, Please show where the sources i have used are wrong. Please show me where in the Cycle that you are claiming is responsible for GW, do we witness the Current activities and Influences of MAN within that cycle, and so dismissing that Human activity as insignificant as it is in the Cycle records. You have not answered any of these. You will not debate any of these. Instead you accuse me of "crucifying the opposition". Please, answer the questions? Its really that simple.


PS: I find it extremely hard to take seriously any science claimed by somebody who hasn't learnt to spell nor form correct paragraphs. Learn these first before moving onto the bigger things. I know that may come across as a personal attack but it's my honest feelings. I'm done with this thread now.
Yes, well, i posted the vast majority of these posts in the wee hours of the morning and maybe i could have used Text Edit. You can crucify my grammatical skills all you want, in fact, it now appears that is all you can attack in the posts, as you continue to Ignore all the requests to answer and review my sources. This is petty in the extreme, and quite frankly typical of those without any solid arguments.
p.s. BTW these are just some of the spelling and grammatical errors in the post i am replying too, i have highlighted these, what is that saying about those that live in glass house. Don't take yourself too seriously. LOL.
SEDIMENTRY, this should be Sedimentary.

Bullyish, this is not a word. Maybe Bullish
Non-crucification. Again, this is not a term or word.



[edit on 6-9-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I assume you still havint watched my video atlasastro?
You asked for me to back up my claims and I have.
And Im confident my case is a lot stronger than yours with this video alone.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Originally posted by Kryties

I pointed out that as a record it is disappearing, suggesting that this puts it outside the cycle, as the record of the cycle itself is melting away. Why would i need to refute the fact that it is a record, a record you yourself admit seems to be experiencing effects that will melt the very evidence of it being a cycle.


Please explain to me how sedimentary cores are supposed to 'melt' considering they are made of clay, mud, sediment, rock and minerals?

Once we've gotten past this very basic Science 101 question then you may begin to see that my evidence is valid.


Singer and Avery stated in their Think Tank piece that in the first Greenland Cores taken in 1983 this cycle became evident, they find these same cycles in Antarctica too. Now, if it is a record of cores taken from two continental Ice Glaciers, these glaciers have to have been maintained over the entire period of the history of these cycle, and so recording them. This suggest that the Ices presence is an indicator of the parameters of the cycle, that the Ice in these locations remains. One Question. Why are these Glaciers melting if this is a natural cycle. Surely that would be preserved as per the natural cycle and so record another phase of the cycle.


SEDIMENTARY CORES ARE NOT MADE OF ICE THEREFORE DO NOT MELT AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CLAIMS IN YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT. Is that clear enough for you???????



I have found no scientific material agreeing with Avery and Singers Think tank piece. Read my statement. I agree that i could have phrased it better, but i specifically mention your think tank piece.


No you did not. You asked for another source, more credible than the one I had already presented, so I showed you two examples. If you had've meant what you say above you would have said that. No use changing your story now mate now that you realise your mistake.



I attacked Avery and Singers claims that the cycle was causing GW, and that the scientific community does not agree, you then post another source that was supposed to refute my claims, but in facts supports it. Thanks. Here it is for you, your source, arguing against you.

Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores
ScienceDaily (Nov. 14, 1997) — Earth's climate cools significantly and abruptly every 1,500 years or so in a persistent, regular rhythm, a team led by scientists at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory reports in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Science.

The earth cools in this examination of the Cores. Not warms as per Avery and Singers think tank piece. I know you may be more focused on a comment regarding the scientific community, but your own evidence supports my original comment that this community does not support your think tank piece.


DUDE!!! You need to recheck what you are saying there. The very fact that it cools every 1500 years also means there must be a warming period for it to cool again. Hence, a 1500 year cycle of warming and cooling. How is that so hard to understand?????



The fact that you are again attacking me via semantics and behaviour only shows you cannot address the questions I have continuously asked you.


I am still not sure how you figure that, I'm becoming more and more confused as I read this post.


Please refute the empirical evidence supporting Anthropogenic Warming.


I'll say this in big words so you do not miss it this time, as you have the other 2 times I have said this...

The evidence I have presented speaks for itself and also, by it's very nature, refutes your argument.





This is because you cannot do the above. Earlier you stated that this was a debate. I have repeatedly debated the evidence you supply, you have still not done this for mine.
Where have i crucified anyone. Your melodramatics are amusing.


You have insulted other people in this thread. You have stated your intention to 'shoot down' other peoples posts. That, in itself, speaks of a bias on your part.


LOL, please, you have pointed out nothing, all you do is complain.


Please, be my guest and point out the posts where I have 'complained'.


The only game i have played is one where i present my sources that support my argument, while reviewing that which is presented by others. An example of this can be found throughout the thread. Look at my replies to Yourself and Member Redneck posts. You have not done this.


Once again, in nice big letters...

The evidence I have presented speaks for itself and also, by it's very nature, refutes your argument.



This is getting ridiculous. If this were a scientific forum or conference of some description, you would have been laughed off the stage by now.

Your lack of understanding of basic Year 7 science is astounding.






[edit on 6/9/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   

reply to post by atlasastro
 

Yes, well, i posted the vast majority of these posts in the wee hours of the morning and maybe i could have used Text Edit. You can crucify my grammatical skills all you want, in fact, it now appears that is all you can attack in the posts, as you continue to Ignore all the requests to answer and review my sources. This is petty in the extreme, and quite frankly typical of those without any solid arguments.


1. I live in Sydney, Australia too. I was replying at the same hours of the morning as you were and yet I have managed to present my claims in a grammatically and punctually correct fashion.

2. This excuse would not cut it if you were attempting to present your evidence to a forum of scientists. They would laugh you off the stage.


[edit on 6/9/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by atlasastro
You get a pass tonight. It's late, I have had a hard day in traffic, and I'm a little fuzzy in the head. But I did want to reply ASAP, so feel free to point out any errors.

No worries,I know that Fuzzy, this is the state in which most of my posts are written. Thanks for the Pass though.



In other words, warmer water will tend to raise the temperature of air readily, while it is much harder for warm air to affect water temperature. This is easily demonstrated by an old country practice of using a container of water atop a heater to help heat a home. The warm water, which becomes water vapor as it evaporates, will keep the air warmer longer than a home with dry air, due to the amount of energy contained in the water vapor. This is also why desert locations can become so hot during the day and yet be very cold at night; the dry air cannot store energy as well as moist (water vapor filled) air.

I understand what you are saying. But what puzzles me is that if these volcanic ridges are producing enough heat both in the water and then into the Air. This still does not explain how glaciers and Ice melt everywhere else. As this heat would surely be lost as it moves and is dispersed away from it original source. A source which is not being observed as being constant. Yet Melts and Global Glacial melts have been Constant for 50-60 years. While Air and Water are not insulated from this heat transference, Georaphically, the locations are. What kind of Volcanic output and activity would be needed to Heat water( which as you have informed me, is harder to do than Air) to such an extent that the subsequent heat produced could then be accepted as the source for GW trends observed? It would have to be massiv would it not, and the currents would be indictive of the warming being distributed globally from these sources. I'll be looking into this more to see what i can find.



CO2 absorption occurs in the atmosphere, not in the oceans. CO2 in the oceans is extremely minimal, due to the interaction of CO2 with hydroxide (OH-) to form a weak carbonic acid solution (HCO3-). Also, UV radiation, which is the energy absorbed by CO2, is not prevalent in the water, since water tends to block it.
Yes but the oceans still absorb and store heats, and surface temperatures have risen, indicating that there is a transfer of heat from the Atmosphere to the Ocean. I agree though that this is hard to swallow as the only cause of oceanic water temperature rises. But to suggest that it is not a contributing factor is also hard to swallow.

As the earth warms, from either natural or human causes, or both, not all the extra heat goes immediately into the atmosphere, where its effect on climate is most direct.

Much of it is absorbed by the oceans, which store it for years or decades before releasing it.

This means that to whatever extent the planet is being warmed by emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, only part of that heating has materialized so far at and above the earth's surface.

Some experts believe that about half the greenhouse warming is still in the oceanic pipeline and will inevitably percolate to the air in the decades just ahead.

I think from this a gather that the people at the National Oceaographic Data centre are not to sure how all this works.

So, if the oceans are warming in specific locations, it is highly illogical to assume that it is due to the action of CO2. Heat transfer from air to water is poor due to the specific heat differential, and the 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 in water is minimalized by its solubility properties and lack of available UV energy. Rising air temperatures from water, however, are easily accomplished by the same phenomena: a high ratio of specific heat capacity of the two substances.


Thank you! CO2 is indeed not a pollutant. It is also produced when any form of carbon-containing compound is oxidized. That includes much more than simply fossil fuels; it includes all organic fuels as well as all life processes and seismic activity. At this point in history, there are only two potential power sources that produce no CO2: nuclear and hydrogen. I am a proponent of nuclear power (with regulation), and we have not yet developed a safe and efficient method of producing/distributing/consuming hydrogen. I hope this will change.

The point is that whatever gaseous substance is introduced into the atmosphere, it will disperse evenly throughout the atmosphere (with some minor fluctuations due to wind currents of course). If I release a large amount of CO2, NO2, SO2, He, H2, or any gas into the air in Alabama, there will not be a larger concentration observed elsewhere as it dissipates. The largest concentration will be in Alabama at the time of the release. I realize this flies in the face of the article you show, but it is simple dispersion physics. Any good first-year chemistry book will back me up. Aerosol or CO2, it will make no difference in the overall dispersal patterns.


Well how does the volcano theory explain this.

As to the Greenland glaciers, seismic activity can occur on land as well as under the ocean. Volcanoes also can form without the traditional volcanic cone; that cone is a typical geometry created by layers of lava erupting over time, not a volcanic requirement. Since we cannot see underneath the glaciers, it is a distinct possibility that seismic activity could be occurring there as well. I believe the image I linked you to shows oceanic temperature anomalies in an area just off Greenland.

As to the Antarctic ice, I believe you are looking at a tree while ignoring the forest:

Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: www.sciencemag.org...

As with any large area of ice, if the mass increases, there will be areas which collapse due to the slow movement (glacial drift) that accompanies. This is why icebergs are a hazard whenever one navigates close to either pole. The information in my initial post showed an almost total lack of high oceanic temperatures reported in the Antarctic, which would indicate that the temperature is not responsible.


Your own source, www.charlotteobserver.com... , coupled with the specific heat subject above, would seem to dismiss atmospheric warming and implicate oceanic warming as well:

“The Markham Ice Shelf was a big surprise because it suddenly disappeared. We went under...... the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic,” said Mueller.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

As stated above, it would take a huge atmospheric temperature anomaly to impart enough energy into the ice to melt it that rapidly. An increase in water temperature, however, could easily do so, based on the amount of energy water can absorb/release.
But this arguement is the same for the amount of enegy needed from volcanic events creating the same rapid changes. The Ridges you from your earlier post are not this active, and only became significant for the way they exploded, not the amount of activity. The more i read into this though, the more i am inclined to accept it as a contributing factor.


Still, I see a remarkable correlation between the known seismically active areas and the temperature anomalies.
Yes I see that correlation to, but only in relation to the Ocean and the Local regions that are effected by this seismic activity. To say that it is responsible for GW is a big leap, considering how incomplete the current knowledge is on these activities. I am thankfull for your input, as this need more serious investigation.


[edit on 6-9-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Originally posted by Kryties


Please explain to me how sedimentary cores are supposed to 'melt' considering they are made of clay, mud, sediment, rock and minerals?

Once we've gotten past this very basic Science 101 question then you may begin to see that my evidence is valid.
The sediment backs up the Ice. I agree with you. I did not say the sedimentary cores would melt. I said the Ice is melting. If the Ice is melting(the record), then the Melting shows that it is outside the recorded cycle. So the Sediment, while valid in backing up the Ice Core samples does not refute that the melting is outside and abnormal for the cycle recorded in both the sediment and the Ice(which is disappearing). Pretty simple. The sediment is only a record of the Cycle. The melting's now, of the area where Ice core records where taken from is proof that this phenomena is outside of these cycle.




SEDIMENTARY CORES ARE NOT MADE OF ICE THEREFORE DO NOT MELT AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CLAIMS IN YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT. Is that clear enough for you???????
Read the above.


DUDE!!! You need to recheck what you are saying there. The very fact that it cools every 1500 years also means there must be a warming period for it to cool again. Hence, a 1500 year cycle of warming and cooling. How is that so hard to understand?????
Dude, read the article, there is no sign of rapid rising of temperature, this is what we are calling GW. There is only evidence in the Cores of Rapid Cooling. It is logical to deduct from this, that that is how the Cores have remained as a historical record!!!! Over the history of the record it never got warm enough to melt these Glaciers. A record that is now melting due to rapid Warming. You need to stop spinning the science to fit your agenda. Read what it says.


The evidence I have presented speaks for itself and also, by it's very nature, refutes your argument.

Umm, only to you. A think tank piece and a opinion piece on the IPCC is not evidence. A fraudulent Petition is not evidence.


You have insulted other people in this thread. You have stated your intention to 'shoot down' other peoples posts. That, in itself, speaks of a bias on your part.

Please alert the Mods of this behaviour. If i am insulting people then the Mods have yet to inform me of this. I have asked other posters to do the same. I am yet to hear that these claims are true. Again you resort to personal attacks. Are you going to debate the topic and answer my questions or just come to this thread and try and ram down your own view while ignoring others. Please You do not have to post. You do not have to participate. You do not have to be here. If my behaviour is so bad why bother. Its because you know that you can't address or answer my question and so are venting at me personally.




Once again, in nice big letters...

The evidence I have presented speaks for itself and also, by it's very nature, refutes your argument.

No it does not. You accept it as such without addressing any of the issues i have raised concerning the "evidence" you present, while ignoring my evidence and questions.


This is getting ridiculous. If this were a scientific forum or conference of some description, you would have been laughed off the stage by now.
Yes you are getting ridiculous. Really. As most of the Stuff i have posted has come from peer reviewed and published papers. Please point out the bits that need to be laughed at, as I have repeatedly asked you to do. Singer(from you previous post) on the other hand Retired and then published his piece on the Cycle Theory for GW, as he knew professionally it would damage his credibility as the general consensus within the Scientific community is the the GW we are experiencing is from MAN.


Your lack of understanding of basic Year 7 science is astounding.

Your evidence wouldn't even make it into a Year 7 curriculum. Geez, i wonder how i got into Sydney University.

I will end this Now. I have looked at your sources. I do not accept these as Valid explanations of GW. I have expressed why in my posts. I base this belief upon the sources i have supplied(which are but a few amongst the many i have encountered while looking at this topic).
Now, you accept that these pieces of evidence speak for themselves. Cool. Great. Good for you. Wow.
Can you please now express why the evidence for anthropogenic global warming that I have linked in earlier posts is wrong. Can you please explain why my sources are questionable in the same way i have with Singer, Avery, Tom Harris and The Petition Authors.
And for one last time. Can you please explain where in the Ice Core Data(and the Sediment Cores) do we observe the current activity of Man, so as to remove this activity as a cause for GW.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Geez, i wonder how i got into Sydney University.


So do I.

It's obvious that you are looking at what I have said and interpreting it in your own way. I have tried to explain the simplicity of it but you simply cannot grasp it. Therefore my input into this thread has come to an impasse and therefore I will take my leave.

Cheerio.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties


1. I live in Sydney, Australia too. I was replying at the same hours of the morning as you were and yet I have managed to present my claims in a grammatically and punctually correct fashion.

2. This excuse would not cut it if you were attempting to present your evidence to a forum of scientists. They would laugh you off the stage.


[edit on 6/9/2008 by Kryties]
Your post is absurd. This is all you have isn't it. Petty swipes and ridiculous hypothetical senarios. Look at the post where i found that you had infact made up two words. Bullyish and Non-crucification. In this post where these words appeared you attacked me for poor spelling and grammer.
I am going out tonight. I'll leave you to conjur up some more snide attacks and fantastical settings where i may be laughed at. Please.




posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Your post is absurd. This is all you have isn't it. Petty swipes and ridiculous hypothetical senarios. Look at the post where i found that you had infact made up two words. Bullyish and Non-crucification. In this post where these words appeared you attacked me for poor spelling and grammer.
I am going out tonight. I'll leave you to conjur up some more snide attacks and fantastical settings where i may be laughed at. Please.


Classic baiting technique, I will no longer play your game.

Once again for the dummies:

It's obvious that you are looking at what I have said and interpreting it in your own way. I have tried to explain the simplicity of it but you simply cannot grasp it. Therefore my input into this thread has come to an impasse and therefore I will take my leave.

Cheerio.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by atlasastro
Your post is absurd. This is all you have isn't it. Petty swipes and ridiculous hypothetical senarios. Look at the post where i found that you had infact made up two words. Bullyish and Non-crucification. In this post where these words appeared you attacked me for poor spelling and grammer.
I am going out tonight. I'll leave you to conjur up some more snide attacks and fantastical settings where i may be laughed at. Please.


Classic baiting technique, I will no longer play your game.

Once again for the dummies:

It's obvious that you are looking at what I have said and interpreting it in your own way. I have tried to explain the simplicity of it but you simply cannot grasp it. Therefore my input into this thread has come to an impasse and therefore I will take my leave.



Cheerio.


I know, its like he just cant see what your saying in plain frikin English, and no doubt he`ll come along and slam me saying this
Well listen atlas, dont reply to me until youve WATCHED THE FRIKIN VIDEO I POSTED THAT PROVES GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT MAN MADE DAMMIT
YOU ASKED FOR ME TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS AND I HAVE BUT NO REPLY FROM YOU, TRUTH HARD TO SWALLOW?

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Outlawstar]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 
Ok. I watched the link. And then realised that your link was to a documentary that was originally titled The Great Global Warming Swindle. The person who posted this on youtube, that you linked to was named Mike Barker. Mike makes it look like it was his video. It is not. The reason why he does not show the original opening to this Documentary or in fact post it under the proper title is quiet frankly fraudulent and misleading. Again another common act by those trying to discredit the facts. I believe Mike posts this documentary under another name because it, and its maker Martin Durkin, have come under fire from some of the scientists in the video and many, many scientist in the General Public. This documentary also received criticism because it fails to address the multitude of scientist who agree with the science showing anthropogenic warming.

British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.


An OfCom enquiry in July 2008 found that this programme "did not fulfill obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues" and "it treated interviewees unfairly"
When they say he treated interviewees unfairly, it means he misrepresented what some of the scientist said.

Further controversy followed the broadcast of the film after it emerged that Martin Durkin had fallen out with geneticist Armand Leroi (whom Durkin was due to make a documentary with), after Leroi questioned the accuracy of the data used in the film in an email to Durkin.


Professor Carl Wunsch who appeared on the programme has since repudiated the film and compared it to propaganda[10].Durkin responded that Wunsch had been told very explicitly the nature of the programme and now appeared to be back-tracking.
SOURCE

Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However,
Wow look at that what a coincidence, Fred Singer appearing in this documentary. This is the Same Fred Singer that ATS memberKryties has used in his arguments. I have linked further reading regarding this man on these previous posts.

In July 2008, the British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers."
286 scientist complained about the Info in this documentary in the UK alone.
These are just some of the flaws in the documentary that Durkin failed to offer a balanced view on, instead he used people to support the beliefs of the Maker. CH4 has had a long running battle against environmentalists, and Durkin has in the past made dubious claims in other documentaries.

Against Nature was a UK television documentary broadcast in 1997 by Channel 4. The film lambasted environmentalism and sustainable development while eulogising genetic modification and denying global warming.
The documentary was produced by associates of the LM group, who presented ideologues like Frank Furedi as independent experts. Channel 4 was forced to issue an apology for the three-hour series.

Against Nature


Where Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change
Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before
Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on

This is even more evident when the oceans heat up, because it effects gas solubility in the oceans resulting in greater amounts of gas being released. This is basic science so i won't post a link to this little fact.

Claim: Temperatures in the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, have not risen as predicted by the models
Fact: This was once the case, but it has been resolved now that initial measurement errors have been corrected
here is a link to measurements on this.

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
At least the scientists here admit that they make mistakes. Its a shame that Durkin is not doing the same in clarifying the Mistakes he has made after presenting them as facts.Source

Claim: Temperatures rose for the first part of the century, then cooled for three decades before warming again. There is no link to carbon dioxide
Fact: Temperatures did follow this pattern, but again there is a good explanation. The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols – particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain Source

Here is a NEW SCIENTIST Article highlighting the effects on warming in the absence of aerosols that backs up the last point that Channel 4 got wrong.

Now that I have addressed your "evidence". I ask you to do the same to these.
The American Denial of Global Warming

Global Warming and Dangers of Climate Change Denial This is from democracy now and features Australian Scientist Tim Flannery who was also named Australian of the Year.

Climate Change Denial Industry This is interesting because it has Tim Ball in it who was also in The Video you link.
Junk Science Vs Real Science The Fraudulent Mr Ball makes another appearance....this time against a real scientist on Global warming.

But wait, there is more. Check my next post, here comes another round of solid facts.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 

Now on the matter that there is no Scientific consensus that anthropogenic Global warming is occurring as stated by the video. Have a look at this.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling


IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].


The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities
www.sciencemag.org...
But what is most significant is that you would expect people publishing material arguing against the consensus that appears in the above quotes.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision,That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
not one paper in disagreement. I hope you check into this one. Please do. here is the link again. www.sciencemag.org...
And this is where this youtube video is importatnt, because it creates doubt, makes the topic and subject appear confused and unstable. This has worked on you.

Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

Source
As an aside, scientific consensus does not mean that we are absolutely right. But that also applies to the apparent consensus in your video documentary.









[edit on 6-9-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties


Classic baiting technique, I will no longer play your game.

Once again for the dummies:

It's obvious that you are looking at what I have said and interpreting it in your own way. I have tried to explain the simplicity of it but you simply cannot grasp it. Therefore my input into this thread has come to an impasse and therefore I will take my leave.

Cheerio.
What is obvious is you cannot answer any of my questions.
What is obvious is that you have not addressed any of the material i have offered supporting my view.
What is obvious is that your evidence has not stood up when challenged.
What is obvious is that when finally asked this:

originally posted by atlasastro
I will end this Now. I have looked at your sources. I do not accept these as Valid explanations of GW. I have expressed why in my posts. I base this belief upon the sources i have supplied(which are but a few amongst the many i have encountered while looking at this topic).
Now, you accept that these pieces of evidence speak for themselves. Cool. Great. Good for you. Wow.
Can you please now express why the evidence for anthropogenic global warming that I have linked in earlier posts is wrong. Can you please explain why my sources are questionable in the same way i have with Singer, Avery, Tom Harris and The Petition Authors.
And for one last time. Can you please explain where in the Ice Core Data(and the Sediment Cores) do we observe the current activity of Man, so as to remove this activity as a cause for GW.

You then go onto say this:

It's obvious that you are looking at what I have said and interpreting it in your own way.
You comment is bordering on stupidity.Of course it is in my own way. And i provide sources that support my beliefs. The fact is that I have run a sceptical eye over what you have presented, and have not looked at it your way.


I have tried to explain the simplicity of it but you simply cannot grasp it. Therefore my input into this thread has come to an impasse and therefore I will take my leave.

Cheerio.

I have understood your posts and answered or expressed my beliefs, backed by sources to support my beliefs. You know where I stand on your evidence. I have explained why i take that stance.
Now, I have repeatedly asked you to do the same with my evidence. To date, after 5 pages you have failed to do this. So you now are leaving. Good. Adios.
The fact that will not answer my questions leads me to believe that the fact is, you cannot. So put up or shut up. Its that simple.

Cheerio.


p.s. i suggest you look at the post above to Outlaw, and read the post concerning scientific consensus and the IPCC. More evidence refuting the dodgy petition you threw up in earlier posts.





[edit on 6-9-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Can outlawstar answer the questions in reply 13 and 14 of this page please.
Please address the topic
Please do not repost the same link to the same video;
Oh wow....look the Ignore button.



[edit on 6-9-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by Outlawstar


I know, its like he just cant see what your saying in plain frikin English, and no doubt he`ll come along and slam me saying this
Well listen atlas, dont reply to me until youve WATCHED THE FRIKIN VIDEO I POSTED THAT PROVES GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT MAN MADE DAMMIT
YOU ASKED FOR ME TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS AND I HAVE BUT NO REPLY FROM YOU, TRUTH HARD TO SWALLOW?

LOLROMA.....oh boy.

Lets see you do the same to my evidence. It won't happen.

Put up or Shut up.
Truth Hard to Swallow. No. It never is. Just your BS.

I will state now. Do not post anything else but a reply to the evidence I have offered you. If you cannot do this then stay off the thread.
Swallow that.


Again you show your true colours by resorting to insults, and yes I HAVE considered your evidence, I read the entire thread.

Youve ASKED ME quite aggresivly to provide evidence of my claims, I have done that and you have still not obliged by watching the video.
Why I ask, are you afraid of the truth perhaps?

Just incase you DID`NT see the link here it is again.

YOUR THEORY BUSTED. CLICK HERE




[edit on 6-9-2008 by Outlawstar]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Outlawstar

Just incase you DID`NT see the link here it is again.

YOUR THEORY BUSTED. CLICK HERE

This is the same video as before. Read the above two replys on this page. You have not answered any of the video links or other sources.
Can you please answer these and stop reposting a link I have addressed.
Please try and read all the posts.Its not that hard. Reply 13 and 14 0n this page.








[edit on 6-9-2008 by atlasastro]

[edit on 6-9-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   




Again youve deluded youself into thinking I havint read what youve posted I have, but if you watch the video you will see it is irrelevant.
Unless you are willing to watch it I can only consider you afraid of the truth, stubborn and ignorant.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 
The reply to your video is on this page. Reply number 13 and 14. I am not going to answer you post unless they address these replies. The evidence and the facts. Keep posting your link to the same video. It makes no difference to me.
Adios.

BTW, I have found that thread Trolls are great for re-inforcing ones beliefs. Keep up the good work.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join