It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Climate Change Protests on 5th December in London

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:56 AM
Instead of protesting against something which remains unproven, why not protest about something we can do something about?

Want less CO2?
Stop chopping down the rainforests.

This conference is being used as a vehicle for global government, which is something we should also be worried about.

This conference has little or nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with a power grab.

It's a long term strategy to tax a semblance of equality into the 3rd world whilst getting western nations to reduce their consumption.

If governments were really serious about doing something, and they really saw this as a threat, then they would be spending a little more than the

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by john124
We can prevent a runaway greenhouse effect by reducing the contribution by CO2. The plants and animals thrived before man-made CO2 emissions were around, and the temperature rises this will cause would be the primary cause of drought, famine, etc.

I've call people ignorant when they ignore these basic scientific facts. It seems you call others ignorant because they choose not to believe in your conspiracies, especially when you have so little facts to back it up.

Well do you have any "facts" to back up your theories on a runaway effect due to CO2? Or how about some "facts" on an increase in drought and famine?

Electric Universe already posted facts showing that rainforests thrived in warmer conditions, then you go and post your opinion (more drought, famine) without any evidince, then criticize his lack of facts? Rather hypocritical don't you think?

Originally posted by john124
Never mind if the polar bears and most animal life dies out, as the plants will thrive in Europe! WOW!!! You really are dense!!!

Do you have any facts for that as well? It's rather interesting considering polar bears are presently doing just fine. In fact some populations are thriving in areas that have seen localised warming, by foraging on land. Funny that, they can adapt to life on land, without ice. You wouldn't hear any alarmists tell you that would you

Originally posted by john124
Here's some real science to debunk your pseudo:

Water vapour is not the dominant greenhouse gas

I had to laugh at that one. Your definition of "real science" is a post on a blog? Who even quotes wiki no less. Sure, you can often find good info on blogs. But when you call others ignorant, then back up your claims of "real science" with a blog post, you're not doing your own credibility any favours.

Oh well, you are entitled to your opinions, and you're free to protest for whatever you want. I just hope you know what you are really promoting.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by john124

Interesting that you do not mention the emails which show the hacking was done, and they found evidence for the data being rigged, which has been posted on blogs yes but a lot of actual stories were released just in blogs...

I also find it telling that you continue to dismiss,and ignore every other piece ofevidence and fact some others and myself have pointed out...

But again, you can protest whatever you want... You can also protest that "elvis must be alive and for the evil vatican to release information about his resurretion".....

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by john124

Actually it's around 20% contributing towards the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide, 50% - water vapour, 25% due to clouds and around 5% for other gases.

It is not, only the AGWers make that claim, and again the amount claimed by the AGWers is 85% for water vapor, including clouds, and from 9% -26% for CO2....

But what the AGWers won't tell you is that they factor in ALL atmospheric layers, and not just the Troposphere trying to dellude you, and deceive you with their numbers. But the fact is that the Troposphere is the most important layer because it is there that ALL surface weather, and climate occurs, and that's the atmospheric layer that affects surface temperatures.

The fact the AGWers don't want to admit is....

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.

Other scientists, such as Prof Richard Lindzen put the numbers to 98% of greenhouse effect on water vapor, and 2% for Co2 and other ghgs.

As for the average lifetime of the ghgs?... You do know that EVERY NIGHT ALL ghgs release most of the heat, which is why it gets usually colder at night, only to slowly warm up again as the day goes by?....

It doesn't matter that CO2 has a longer lifetime, because BOTH water vapor and CO2 release most of the heat at night.... Otherwise the night would be as hot as the mornings.... and only the nights where there are LOW CLOUDS are the hotter nights for a reason.... it is not because of is because of WATER VAPOR....

Originally posted by john124
We can prevent a runaway greenhouse effect by reducing the contribution by CO2. The plants and animals thrived before man-made CO2 emissions were around, and the temperature rises this will cause would be the primary cause of drought, famine, etc.

.....The EArth has been HOTTER in the past, and there has been MORE atmospheric CO2 and there HAS NEVER BEEN ANY RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.... That is another lie, and myth perpetrated by those who want to instill fearmongering on people....

Originally posted by john124
I've call people ignorant when they ignore these basic scientific facts. It seems you call others ignorant because they choose not to believe in your conspiracies, especially when you have so little facts to back it up.

The only ignorant people are those like you, you wouldn't know a scientific fact if it sat on your lap and called you "momma."

Originally posted by john124
What you are claiming as long-term benefits to high CO2 levels are only in fact short-term benefits, and once a threshold point is reached - it will lead to far worser consequences which outweigh the positives.

BS....there has been higher levels of CO2 in the past and life thrived just fine until an ice age, or some mayor disaster occurred....

Originally posted by john124

This is analogous to recent research concluding that drinking a bottle of wine a day reduces chances of heart disease by around 1/3 - short-term benefits, although later on a good chance of liver failure. Personally, I do not want the Earth to have liver failure so we can grow a few more crops today!!!

What is it with people like you pulling "allegories" out of a hat, and claiming everything is like every allegory you produce out of nowhere?.....

Originally posted by john124
You also seem to confuse natural climate change with man-made climate change, or rather just ignore the latter.

Me?... no... i wasn't the one to come up with the hoax of Global Warming, and now call it "Climate Change" because Nature wouldn't play along with your hoax..... I have known about Climate Changes for a long time, and they are ALL NATURAL...

Originally posted by john124
I used to think the theory of the sun cycles as being the major cause due to decreases in solar wind causing an increase in cosmic ray impacts, and therefore an increase in cloud formation. But this theory has never being proven, yet it has been tested rigorously.

What?... i am sorry you talk about "scientific facts" before and now you even show once again you have no idea what you are talking about.....

First of all, it is a FACT that the Sun is the main reason why the Earth is full of life, and it is as warm as it is now, otherwise it would be over 400C F colder than it is, even with ghgs.....

You want REAL allegories?.. this is a REAL allegory...

If you put a steamy cup of coffee in the refrigerator, it wouldn’t immediately turn cold. Likewise, if the sun simply “turned off” (which is actually physically impossible), the Earth would stay warm—at least compared with the space surrounding it—for a few million years. But we surface dwellers would feel the chill much sooner than that.

Within a week, the average global surface temperature would drop below 0°F. In a year, it would dip to –100°. The top layers of the oceans would freeze over, but in an apocalyptic irony, that ice would insulate the deep water below and prevent the oceans from freezing solid for hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years after that, our planet would reach a stable –400°, the temperature at which the heat radiating from the planet’s core would equal the heat that the Earth radiates into space, explains David Stevenson, a professor of planetary science at the California Institute of Technology.

Without the Sun the Earth would be -400 C colder, on contrast if there weren't any ghgs, it would be -33 C colder...and MOST of that comes from water vapor and not CO2...

Originally posted by john124

Never mind if the polar bears and most animal life dies out, as the plants will thrive in Europe! WOW!!! You really are dense!!!

You calling me dense?... It has been known that the cute polar bear photo of what was claimed to be a polar bear that was in danger WAS A HOAX....the person who took the picture has come forward to state the polar bear WAS NEVER IN DANGER.... and then again we have the figures that tell us Polar Bear population HAS ACTUALLY BEEN INCREASING NOT DECREASING....

Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax

Remember that wonderful picture of stranded polar bears on an ice floe that were used by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore to demonstrate how dire the man-made global warming issue is?

Well, ABC television in Australia, on a show called Media Watch, recently debunked the entire issue (video available here, h/t NB member dscott).

It turns out -- as NewBuster Jake Gontesky reported on March 20 -- the picture was taken in August, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.

The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy: They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.

That's the sort of hoax that your buddies, allied with Al Gore like to come up with, to lure in the naive, ignorant, and gullible like yourself...

Talk about "being dense"....

Originally posted by john124
I doubt any new species could treat the Earth any worse than humans are currently, so maybe the human race does deserve to go into the rubbish bin of history if we cannot treat planet earth and its occupants with more respect.

Tell you what, if you hate the human species so much I'll give you a piece of rope so you can end your suffering really fast.... Just don't take the rest of us with you because of your flawed ideologies, which is what you are DEMANDING us to do...

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:07 AM
well i give up trying to convince idiots that man is making too much greenhouse gases for the planet to deal with without upsetting its natural cycle. Well we are on a countdown to dramatic climate change and its only a matter of time before we find who is correct. I do hope that we the global climate change voicers will be wrong and we wont have the Artic polar caps fully melted in summer, not to mention the loss of greenlands icecaps which in turn not only raise the sea levels but will lessen the saltiness of the sea water hence closing down the gulf stream making the northern climate go a lot colder. I hope that the cutting down of rain foresets to make way for cattle which in turn produce methane isnt going to cause us any problems or the fact that in areas wheres theres already thawing of permafrost the huge amounts of methane that is stored in permafrost lakes isnt going to bubble into the atmosphere. I hope i am wrong about all these things but the evidence is all to clear for anyone with eyes can see for themselves.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by loner007]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by loner007

And hence we find another one who claims to be intelligent and to know the truth without giving one iota of evidence of even having 1/100 of an inch of grey matter in that rocky mess such a person calls it's brain.....

It is such ignorant people who don't understand the difference between NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE, and the hoax behind Anthropogenic Global Warming....

Such people think that Climate Change just occurred now that mankind made it's appearance in Hollywood, and such people love to watch the Hollywood made up crap about some horrible disaster about to occur, and then one of the Baldwin brothers, or Bruce Willis, comes forward with a nuclear weapon, and cures from cancer, to the end of the world....

You will see such characters saving the Earth from the Moon which was blown in two, and then they make up some silly claim that detonating a nuclear weapon will magnetize both parts, the Moon will be pulled together, and the good guy will go to bed with a hot, brainless chic.....

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:43 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I am quite aware of natural climate change. I suggest you look into ice core samples and look at the amount of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere from 1750 and compare it with the last 10 000 years.
Ohhhh Go on I dare you i dare you i dare you....Pretty please with cherry on top do this for me.........

btw 1750 is when the industrial revolution begun.....

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by loner007

...and i know that CO2 LAGS temperature by an average 800 years...which means CO2 IS NOT the cause of warming, it is the oposite...warming cycles increase the amont of ghgs, including water vapor, and CO2.....

Oh and BTW... the Earth began to warm starting in the 1600s.... it was only after the Earth's magnetic field began to weaken, in 1840-1860 that temperatures began increasing faster, and faster.... not to mention that the Sun's activity back then was at the highest it has been in over 1,000 years during the times of most warming....

The 800 year lag – graphed
Carbon follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

BTW...take a look at the data over millions of years on temperature and CO2....

and take a look at the Sargasso Sea Temperatures which shows that during the Medieval Warm period, and the Roman Warm Period Earth was MUCH warmer than it has been in the 20th century...

and take a look at the magnetic field of the Earth which began to weaken in 1840, and temperatures only increased exponentially around this time....

and take a look at the strength of the Sun's magnetic storms, which began getting stronger since 1900, and it got stronger until about the end of 2006...

Sorry kid, you are way out of your league.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

according to ice core samples greenhouse gases which include carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide and cfc-12

Gas Preindustrial Level Current Level Increase since 1750
Carbon dioxide 280 ppm 387ppm 107 ppm
Methane 700 ppb 1,745 ppb 1,045 ppb
Nitrous oxide 270 ppb 314 ppb 44 ppb
CFC-12 0 533 ppt 533 ppt

now Natural greenhouse emissions EXCLUDING man made emissions are part of the natural cycle in which the greenhouses gases are balanced out .

Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity, but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks such as weathering of continental rocks and photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a result of this balance, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era.
Since 1750 we have had a 38% increase just on carbon dioxide alone that is being added to the atmosphere.. hmmm wheres this extra co2 coming from.....

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor engulfs as much as 2% of the atmosphere and is the reason for approximately 66% of the natural greenhouse effect

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor.

So more warming equals more water vapour which equals more warming...............

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:27 AM
Want to see another graph on the fact that there have been other Climate Changes in which atmospheric CO2 did not change much yet temperatures were higher than they were in the 20th century?...

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:30 AM
reply to post by loner007

wow...back again to the claim that Earth was better with atmospheric CO2 at less than 280ppm?...

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

Rebecca Lindsey June 5, 2003

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

The first neotropical rainforest was home of the Titanoboa
Published: Monday, October 12, 2009 - 15:09 in Paleontology & Archaeology

Smithsonian researchers working in Colombia's Cerrejón coal mine have unearthed the first megafossil evidence of a neotropical rainforest. Titanoboa, the world's biggest snake, lived in this forest 58 million years ago at temperatures 3-5 C warmer than in rainforests today, indicating that rainforests flourished during warm periods. "Modern neotropical rainforests, with their palms and spectacular flowering-plant diversity, seem to have come into existence in the Paleocene epoch, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago," said Carlos Jaramillo, staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "Pollen evidence tells us that forests before the mass extinction were quite different from our fossil rainforest at Cerrejón. We find new plant families, large, smooth-margined leaves and a three-tiered structure of forest floor, understory shrubs and high canopy."

The AGWers sure love to ignore facts....

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:38 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Really and how much rainforest and plant extinctions is going on currently in the world? i dont think its much of a paradise for plants . Rain forests need to exist for them to work.......

and u are forgetting about consequences of warming as i said what is going to happen when the oceans salinity drops .....

Where is all the methane going to to that is being released due to permafrost thawing. You have only given examples of short term benefits. How very short sighted of you

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:38 AM
Then there is the fact such as....

On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:44 AM

Originally posted by loner007

and u are forgetting about consequences of warming as i said what is going to happen when the oceans salinity drops .....

the only short sighted one is you...Do you think that this is the only time that salinity in the oceans has dropped?.... During the Medieval , and Roman Warm periods the Earth was hotter, yet THERE WERE NO SUPER MASSIVE EXTINCTIONS......


Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA All rights reserved.
Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Fekri A. Hassana,

aInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, WC1H 0PY, London, UK

Available online 7 June 2007.

Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur atAD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.

Mankind, nature, and all animals had to adapt to WORSE Climate Changes in the past.... and the worse thing is that people like you have no idea what it means that the Earth magnetic field is now weaker than it has been for tens of thousands of years...the Sun's activity is at the lowest it has been at least since we started observing it, and this is allowing more interstellar dust, and charged particles to enter the Solar System and to enter Earth.... This is a real problem and people like you just want to give more power, and money to governments for a hoax?....

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:46 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

so to give credence to your arguement regarding salinity u post data on the nile.........nile is fresh water not salt

Measurements in 2004, 2005 and 2008
In April 2004, the hypothesis that the Gulf Stream is switching off received a boost when a retrospective analysis of U.S. satellite data seemed to show a slowing of the North Atlantic Gyre, the northern swirl of the Gulf Stream.[6]

In May 2005, Peter Wadhams reported to The Times about the results of investigations in a submarine under the Arctic ice sheet measuring the giant chimneys of cold dense water, in which the cold dense water normally sinks down to the sea bed and is replaced by warm water, forming one of the engines of the North Atlantic Drift. He and his team found the chimneys to have virtually disappeared. Normally there are seven to twelve giant columns, but Wadhams found only two giant columns, both extremely weak.[7][8]

In 2008, Vage et al. reported "the return of deep convection to the subpolar gyre in both the Labrador and Irminger seas in the winter of 2007-2008," employing "profiling float data from the Argo program to document deep mixing," and "a variety of in situ, satellite and reanalysis data" to set the context for the phenomenon. This might have a lot to do with the observations of variations in cold water chimney behavior. ("Surprising return of deep convection to the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean in winter 2007-2008" Nature Geoscience 2: 67-72).

[edit] Bryden measurements reported late 2005
The news service[9] reported on 30 November 2005 that the National Oceanography Centre in the UK found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream from the last such measurement in 1992. The authors note that currently the observed changes are "uncomfortably close" to the uncertainties in the measurements. However, the North Atlantic is currently warmer than in the earlier measurements.[10] This suggests that either the circulation is not weakening, or that, even if it is weakening, the weakening is not having the hypothesised cooling effect, or that other factors are able to overwhelm any cooling.[11]

The New Scientist article was based on an article in Nature.[12] In News and Views in the same issue, Detlef Quadfasel reinforces the point that the uncertainty of the estimates of Bryden et al. is high, but says other factors and observations do support their results. Quadfasel continues by pointing out the significance of the possible implications, with palaeoclimate records showing drops of air temperature up to 10°C within decades, linked to abrupt switches of ocean circulation when a certain threshold is reached. He concludes that further observations and modelling are crucial for providing early warning of a possible devastating breakdown of the circulation.[13]

On 19 January 2006, a News Feature Climate change: A sea change by Quirin Schiermeier appeared in Nature, detailing reactions to the Bryden results.[14] Points made by Schiermeier include the following:

The results are a surprise to scientists in the field.
Modelling suggests that increase of fresh water flows large enough to shut down the thermohaline circulation would be an order of magnitude greater than currently estimated to be occurring, and such increases are unlikely to become critical within the next hundred years; this is hard to reconcile with the Bryden measurements.
The Bryden results could be caused by natural variation, or "noise", that is, coincidence.
If the results are correct, perhaps thermohaline circulation reductions will not have the drastic effects that have been predicted on European cooling.
While previous shutdowns (e.g. the Younger Dryas) have caused cooling, the current overall climate is different; in particular sea-ice formation is less because of overall global warming.
However, a thermohaline circulation shutdown could have other major consequences apart from cooling of Europe, such as an increase in major floods and storms, a collapse of plankton stocks, warming or rainfall changes in the tropics or Alaska and Antarctica (including those from intensified El Niño effect), more frequent and intense El Niño events, or an oceanic anoxic event (oxygen (O2) below surface levels of the stagnant oceans becomes completely depleted - a probable cause of past mass extinction events).

You arent the only one to copy and paste....

[edit on 21-11-2009 by loner007]

[edit on 21-11-2009 by loner007]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:52 AM
You can find peer reviewed research from ALL OVER THE GLOBE that shows the Medieval Warm Period, and the ROman Warm Period were warmer than the 20th century... yet people like you keep claiming the contrary...

P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss (in press) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science.


The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa

P. D. Tyson1, W. Karlén2, K. Holmgren2 and G. A. Heiss3.

1Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
2Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
3Geomar, Wischhofstr. 1-3, 24148 Kiel, Germany; present address: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany, E-mail:


The Little Ice Age, from around 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300 in South Africa, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley.
The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1oC cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
Journal Climatic Change
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online)
Issue Volume 26, Numbers 2-3 / March, 1994
DOI 10.1007/BF01092419
Pages 289-297
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, February 07, 2005
Add to marked items
Add to shopping cart
Add to saved items
Permissions & Reprints
Recommend this article

PDF (509.6 KB)Free Preview

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
De'Er Zhang1

(1) Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Baishiqiaolu No. 46, 100081 Beijing, China

Abstract The collected documentary records of the cultivation of citrus trees andBoehmeria nivea (a perennial herb) have been used to produce distribution maps of these plants for the eighth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. The northern boundary of citrus andBoehmeria nivea cultivation in the thirteenth century lay to the north of the modern distribution. During the last 1000 years, the thirteenth-century boundary was the northernmost. This indicates that this was the warmest time in that period. On the basis of knowledge of the climatic conditions required for planting these species, it can be estimated that the annual mean temperature in south Henan Province in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present. A new set of data for the latest snowfall date in Hangzhou from A.D. 1131 to 1264 indicates that this cannot be considered a cold period, as previously believed.

Late Holocene Environmental and Hydrologic Conditions in Northwestern Florida Derived from Seasonally Resolved Profiles of δ18O and Sr/Ca of Fossil Bivalves.
Elliot, M.; de Menocal, P. B.; Linsley, B. K.; Howe, S. S.; Guilderson, T.; Quitmyer, I. R.
AA(Edinburgh University, Dept. Geology and Geophysics, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW United Kingdom ;, AB(Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 ;, AC(University at Albany, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222 ;, AD(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ;, AE(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; ), AF(Florida Museum of Natural History, Dickinson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 ; )
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #PP72A-0429
Publication Date:
AGU Keywords:
3344 Paleoclimatology, 4215 Climate and interannual variability (3309), 4227 Diurnal, seasonal, and annual cycles, 4870 Stable isotopes, 4875 Trace elements
Bibliographic Code:

We reconstruct environmental conditions of coastal Northwestern Florida from combined measurements of δ18O and Sr/Ca of fossil marine bivalves deposited in an archeological site during the late Holocene period. We first investigated the environmental controls of seasonally resolved records of δ18O and Sr/Ca of modern Mercenaria mercenaria and Mercenaria campesiensis collected live from five coastal sites along the east coast of North America. Seasonal profiles were obtained by sub-sampling the incremental growth layers of aragonite and were compared with in situ historical records of temperature and salinity. We show that these bivalves precipitate their shell in isotopic equilibrium with the water in which they grew and that the δ18O records are not affected by variations in growth rate. Winter growth appears to be interrupted or strongly reduced below water temperatures ranging from 7 to 18° C, depending on latitude. The annual average δ18O decreases with latitude, reflecting both the parallel trend of freshwater δ18O with latitude over the North American continent and the reduced winter growth rate. The Sr/Ca records of the 5 modern bivalves also exhibit seasonal variations can be correlated to water temperature. However, contrary to corals, the Sr/Ca ratio is considerably lower than the average sea water Sr/Ca composition and is positively correlated to the water temperature. We dated and measured the δ18O and Sr/Ca of 30 fossil M. campesiensis from an archeological site close to Cedar Key, in the Gulf of Mexico. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry 14C dates obtained for each shell show ages which cluster between 1100 to 1400 and 2300 to 2600 14C years BP corresponding approximately to two historical warm periods known as the Medieval Warm Period (~ 1300-900AD) and the Roman Warm Period (~ 250AD-200BC). The average annual and summer Sr/Ca of 4 fossil shells are higher than that of modern bivalves from the same location suggesting that annual coastal water temperatures were 3 to 4° C warmer than today. The bulk δ18O values show a marked trend towards more positive values. 24 fossil shells have bulk δ18O values 0.2\permil to 0.7\permil more positive than modern bivalves from the same location. These results suggest that the coastal waters off northwest Florida were warmer and less saline compared to today and attest of considerable differences of the regional climate and hydrological balance during the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.

Science 26 September 1997:
Vol. 277. no. 5334, pp. 1963 - 1965
DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5334.1963
Prev | Table of Contents | Next


Total Solar Irradiance Trend During Solar Cycles 21 and 22
Richard C. Willson

Results from Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) experiments show an upward trend in total solar irradiance of 0.036 percent per decade between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22. The trend follows the increasing solar activity of recent decades and, if sustained, could raise global temperatures. Trends of total solar irradiance near this rate have been implicated as causal factors in climate change on century to millennial time scales.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:54 AM

Originally posted by loner007

so to give credence to your arguement regarding salinity u post data on the nile.........nile is fresh water not salt

What the hell?....
What do you think happened when the entire globe was undergoing WARMING during the Medieval Warm Period?....

What do you think was happening to the poles?...

Have you EVER studied history?... what did the Vikings do during this time?....

Are you that ignorant that you can't put 1 +1 =2 together?.....

It is obvious you have no idea of what you are talking about....

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by john124

In my own opinion global warming is not man made

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:01 AM

Hormes, A., Beer, J. and Schlüchter, C., 2006. A geochronological approach to understanding the role of solar activity on Holocene glacier length variability in the Swiss Alps. Geogr. Ann., 88 A (4): 281–294.

Abstract — We present a radiocarbon data set of 71 samples of wood and peat material that melted out or sheared out from underneath eight present day mid-latitude glaciers in the Central Swiss Alps. Results indicated that in the past several glaciers have been repeatedly less extensive than they were in the 1990s. The periods when glaciers had a smaller volume and shorter length persisted between 320 and 2500 years. This data set provides greater insight into glacier variability than previously possible, especially for the early and middle Holocene. The radiocarbon-dated periods defined with less extensive glaciers coincide with periods of reduced radioproduction, pointing to a connection between solar activity and glacier melting processes. Measured long-term series of glacier length variations show significant correlation with the total solar irradiance. Incoming solar irradiance and changing albedo can account for a direct forcing of the glacier mass balances. Long-term investigations of atmospheric processes that are in interaction with changing solar activity are needed in order to understand the feedback mechanisms with glacier mass balances.

The Role of Solar Activity on Holocene Glacier Length Variability in the swiss Alps

The Holocene, Vol. 16, No. 5, 697-704 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0959683606hl964rp

Multicentury glacier fluctuations in the Swiss Alps during the Holocene
Ulrich E. Joerin
Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 1, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland,

Thomas F. Stocker

Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

Christian Schlüchter

Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 1, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

Subfossil remains of wood and peat from six Swiss glaciers found in proglacial fluvial sediments indicate that glaciers were smaller than the 1985 reference level and climatic conditions allowed vegetation growth in now glaciated basins. An extended data set of Swiss glacier recessions consisting of 143 radiocarbon dates is presented to improve the chronology of glacier fluctuations. A comparison with other archives and dated glacier advances suggests 12 major recession periods occurring at 9850- 9600, 9300-8650, 8550-8050, 7700-7550, 7450-6550, 6150-5950, 5700-5500, 5200-4400, 4300-3400, 2800-2700, 2150-1850, 1400-1200 cal. yr BP. It is proposed that major glacier fluctuations occurred on a multicentennial scale with a changing pattern during the course of the Holocene. After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene.

If you are going to make an argument, learn how to do it, and learn how to read the evidence that is being given if you want to refute such evidence...

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:09 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

That may be the case but in those times human activity didnt involve mass industry throwing tonnes of c02 into the atmosphere. You cannot compare the medieval with today. Not only that the earth had chance to balance it without the interfence of added c02. Take humans out of the equation and yes you get natural climate cycles. The whole point is we are accelerating the process to a point where the earth cannot balance it out over time. Hence we will see more dramatic weather which is happening right now. Now take into account of how much of the planets mechanism to maintain balance we have destroyed the earth cannot cope. In time it will balance out but in the meantime we will face the consequences and i dont really care whether or not you believe this or not but as I said time will tell. And if i am wrong then i be very glad i was wrong but if we are correct then dont blame anyone because we knew human activity was having an adverse affect on this planet way back in the early 80s and even longer.
At the end of the day if mankind does suffer from climate change due to food and water shortages well you were warned.....

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in