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.

 

Global Warming or a New Ice Age?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73

CO2 lags temperature during ice-age cycles, therefore there's a cause and effect problem...and?


and?



And I was hoping for the punchline...

OK, you're playing hard to get, nothing worse than a good joke without the lulz. I'll provide some potential choices for the punchline, like a build your own joke type thingymajig...

CO2 lags temperature during ice-age cycles, therefore there's a cause and effect problem, and...

a) this means that warming temperatures cause penguins to wear sunhats and shades!

b) this means that CO2 is an invisible gas, so it doesn't really exist! No problem to see, you see!

c) this means that CO2 doesn't cause warming!

d) this means that ice-age cycles no longer need snow-chains!

e) wut?

f) all of the above

g) none of the above and I must feed a carrot to the lagomorph. Catch ya later!

h) provide alternative punchline in your next post...

[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Well wow that video....

at about 34 minutes in he says .....

"we know the co2 didnt cause that" ie the warming

then right after he says something really close to "we know the orbit has to change then that changes the ice sheets that change the co2"

you lose?

did you even watch your own 'evidence'?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by watcher73

CO2 lags temperature during ice-age cycles, therefore there's a cause and effect problem...and?


and?



And I was hoping for the punchline...

OK, you're playing hard to get, nothing worse than a good joke without the lulz. I'll provide some potential choices for the punchline, like a build your own joke type thingymajig...

CO2 lags temperature during ice-age cycles, therefore there's a cause and effect problem, and...

a) this means that warming temperatures cause penguins to wear sunhats and shades!

b) this means that CO2 is an invisible gas, so it doesn't really exist! No problem to see, you see!

c) this means that CO2 doesn't cause warming!

d) this means that ice-age cycles no longer need snow-chains!

e) wut?

f) all of the above

g) none of the above and I must feed a carrot to the lagomorph. Catch ya later!

h) provide alternative punchline in your next post...

[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]



Oh I get it, you just post up random sciency # without having read it or watched it, then make jokes because you think no one else reads or watches either?

Back to video, maybe it will come to your rescue in the second half?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Oh ok, here he goes...


lol did he really compare debt and interest with co2 and warming?

edit: on a side note in the last few minutes he sounds really really nervous while he just keeps repeating himself that when temp rises co2 does also



[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Ok so he is just taking questions now.

So around the 34 min mark as I said earlier he stated the warming starts first and then co2 follows.

Never did he contradict that afterwards, or before that I recall.

We can all see that they move in almost lockstep, but even he admits that the cause comes before the effect.

While your post seemed to imply otherwise.

All in all he just seemed intent to prove a correlation that no one really has denied, except for people like you, who still like to write it backwards.

So like him I will say that yes co2 goes up when warming happens. But no where in any of that does he say, in fact he SAYS the opposite, that co2 is the initial cause. He says the orbit starts it.

And it was HIS mistake in the first place that said co2 then warm in the first place?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nice video, too bad it owned you.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
It was a nice ad for the IPCC though.

At least if Penn state fires him he knows he has a job making more things up.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73
Well wow that video....

at about 34 minutes in he says .....

"we know the co2 didnt cause that" ie the warming

then right after he says something really close to "we know the orbit has to change then that changes the ice sheets that change the co2"

you lose?

did you even watch your own 'evidence'?


I'm impressed you're apparently watching it. Funny that you're 34 mins in and apparently watched the long discussion about the relationship between CO2 and climate changes over millions of years and ignored it all, lol. Suppose you'll point out he said that CO2 never killed the dinosaurs as well.

He said that CO2 doesn't cause that = ice-age cycles. It's a result of orbital variations. As he says, these orbital variations pace the cycles. He doesn't say that CO2 doesn't cause warming.

So, yeah, orbital variations trigger an initial warming and pace the cycles. CO2 doesn't do that - CO2 is not the trigger. The initial pertubation from orbital variations result in warming, which affects other aspects of the climate system. Including CO2. As climate warms CO2 is released from the biosphere.

Perhaps you missed the bit starting at 35 mins. The bit where he takes the piss out the dufus who wanted him sacked because of the lag issue. The part with the analogy about credit card interest etc. Not the best analogy, IMO.

I prefer to give the comparable logical fallacy to the lag fallacy as that because a chicken came from an egg, a chicken therefore can't lay an egg!

CO2 is both cause and effect in its relationship with temperature. This he points out at 37 mins:

Orbits > warming > CO2 > warming.

Thus, your joke was a funny fallacy oft repeated by clueless deniers. Best served with a side-order of cocky arrogance. Thanks. But you do need to work on your delivery.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   


He doesn't say that CO2 doesn't cause warming.



Yes he did.

And no it wasnt a great analogy. Maybe someone forgot to mention to him that interest is still debt.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Orbits > warming > CO2 > warming.


So co2 doesnt cause the warming is what youre saying?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
All either of you is saying is that when it warms because of the orbits that co2 also goes up.

K thanks, we all knew this when the 800 year anomaly came to light.

I suppose when it warms up and water starts evaporating into what its called? Water vapor?

What is water vapor again?

The most potent greenhouse gas?

So the orbit starts the warming, ice starts melting and then what co2, with its huge percentage of atmospheric (sic) composition makes warming even warmer?

Or maybe the orbit starts the warming, ice melts, more water becomes the awesome vapor we keep hearing about, exacerbates the warming and the co2 even more until the orbit again changes to cool us down?

Maybe we should drill the ice cores for water vapor...lulz, oh that stuff freezes and driops out of the air doesnt it?

DANG

Maybe we should find a highly unlikely culprit named co2 instead....

That dude doesnt deserve a degree. He is a mere rook of the IPCC and youre a mere pawn in the intellectual game.



[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73


He doesn't say that CO2 doesn't cause warming.


Yes he did.


Oh no he didn't![/panto]



Orbits > warming > CO2 rise > more warming.

And in the last few slides:



"Higher CO2 may be forcing or feedback - a CO2 molecule in the air is radiatively active regardless of how it got there"

During ice-age warming CO2 is a feedback. It amplifies warming. Currently, CO2 is a forcing.

ABE: and I see you're now being deceptive and purposefully ignorant. You're just another clueless denier. Ciao.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Yes he did. He said it, he didnt slide it.

Let me also inform you that youre about as funny as you are smart.

Now its my turn for a question.

When during the M cycles it starts cooling like you just threw temperature off a cliff what is falling out of the air?

HINT: ITS WHAT THEY DRILL INTO LOOKING FOR CO2

good game kid


lets have some more jokes eh?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Awww you dont want to play anymore?

Want another hint?

Its the same thing going into the air as soon as it starts warming.

I guess you didnt figure on anyone being as smart as you pretend to be?




ABE: and I see you're now being deceptive



Awww now youre calling me what you and Dick Alley are. Isnt that nice.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   


During ice-age warming CO2 is a feedback. It amplifies warming. Currently, CO2 is a forcing.


We are still in an ice-age. Therefore, according to you, its still a feedback.

Thanks for playing.

Have mommy warm up your cookies and milk.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73
I suppose when it warms up and water starts evaporating into what its called? Water vapor?

What is water vapor again?

The most potent greenhouse gas?


lol, no it isn't. It is the most abundant.

CFCs are many times more potent than both CO2 and H2O.

Water vapour level is directly governed by temperature via Clausius-Clapeyron. Thus it will be involved as a feedback in all climate changes, to be sure. But it's funny that you're arguing that CO2 doesn't cause warming, but another greenhouse gas does. The issue with water vapour is that it is inherently a feedback, never a forcing. Unlike CO2. CO2 will cause a water vapour feedback, and it is now.

Well, that's enough consumption of impossible things before/during breakfast por moi. Catch ya around, you're starting to bore me. If you have anything new, I'll might take note.


Originally posted by watcher73



During ice-age warming CO2 is a feedback. It amplifies warming. Currently, CO2 is a forcing.


We are still in an ice-age. Therefore, according to you, its still a feedback.


lol. How pathetic. We are in now in an interglacial. The recent increasing CO2 (ca. 35% increase cf. prior baseline) is simply a result of our burning stuff.


Originally posted by watcher73
Awww you dont want to play anymore?


Nah, I was having a cup of tea and some toast. It was yummy! Like your understanding of this issue, don't overestimate how compelling you are.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
And another senseless thread about climate change - This is Nr. 362
And all I see, are subjective ramblings, - sorry.

What is the Point? Want a bigger car? Eat more meat? My pet #'s to much? Need more Hairspray?

What is the point of this discussions? Are you trying to find trueness? Is it possible on this questions?


[edit on 6-1-2010 by cushycrux]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Doesn't Global warming lead to an ICE AGE???



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Experts: Cold Snap Doesn't Disprove Global Warming

Experts Say Cold Weather Is Just A Blip In Long-Term Heating Trend
MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer

POSTED: Wednesday, January 6, 2010
UPDATED: 8:01 pm EST January 6, 2010
Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And freezing weather is gripping the Deep South, including Florida's orange groves and beaches.

Whatever happened to global warming?

Such weather doesn't seem to fit with warnings from scientists that the Earth is warming because of greenhouse gases. But experts say the cold snap doesn't disprove global warming at all -- it's just a blip in the long-term heating trend.


www.clickondetroit.com...#


Of course the naysayers will say there is no such thing as global warming because of the cold weather around the world right now.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

lol. How pathetic. We are in now in an interglacial. The recent increasing CO2 (ca. 35% increase cf. prior baseline) is simply a result of our burning stuff.

Like your understanding of this issue, don't overestimate how compelling you are.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]



The general term "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" denotes a geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. An ice age is a natural system. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in the ice age that began at the start of the Pleistocene (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).[2]


You mad?

Whose understanding of what?

Oh and since he claims something about the Earth having to be a black body billions of years ago to explain the warmth then someone should inform him that just as the moon is moving away from the Earth the Earth is also moving away from the sun. Fifteen cm a year x billions of years = ?

It equals him nervously trying to patch up his effed up theory that only retards still cling to.

and since you want to call people deniers when they dont agree with you...lul you remind me of the one guy in copenhagen, was it gore?, who kept asking if the reporter cared about polar bears..

him: but what about the polar bears

reporter: their numbers have been increasing

him: so you dont care about the polar bears?

reporter: their numbers have been increasing

him: so you dont care about the polar bears?

reporter: their numbers have been increasing

then his mic was cut off

anyway back to you, the denier, denying that the IPCC has been fudging the numbers

denying that global temps have been decreasing

denying that your video boy, Dick, is only using more bad science to try and salvage what little is left of his already disproven theory

denying that effects come after causes...

Youre pitiful frankly, and Im done destroying you, the DENIER.




[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Russian Scientist: Earth Will Soon Enter New Ice Age

January 24, 2008 (LPAC)-- On Jan. 22, Russian scientist Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the Space Research Lab at the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg said, in an interview with RIA Novosti that, "temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming." Abdusamatov also said, "according to the scientists, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade - but global warming has practically stopped. Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 degrees Celsius in the past ten years - however, it never happened."

Abdusamatov warns, "In 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels." He added, "By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200 year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years and by mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, and therefore, the Earth must brace itself for a growing ice cap, rather than rising waters in global oceans caused by ice melting." He concluded by saying, "Mankind will face serious economic, social, and demographic consequences of the coming Ice Age because it will directly affect more than 80% of the Earth's population."



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join