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.

 

A "Dummies Guide" showing how easy it is to disprove the global warming myth

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
One easy way to prove it is not a hoax: Look at the North Pole. Just water left.


Also, if global warming is actually happening, where do you think it would start to be the most notable? Near the equator, or near the poles? I see most of the cities you choose are pretty close to the equator except the vostok station.

Comparing the last 15 years is no good when talking global warming, you need to have the years before the industrial revolution included at the very least, as that is where we started messing with the environment. So try including the last 200 years if you want the full picture. Oh, and don´t forget the North Pole!

edit on 13-2-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)


I agree, this data itself is dismissable as it is only a 15 year period, you need to take temps from before we started affecting our environment as that will paint the whole picture for you, the past 15 years OF COURSE there is no noticeable temp differences, we've been at this polluted point for a while now , look further back then reproduce that same answer , we'll wait.




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
However it does this over thousands of years not just a few decades. Rises in global average temperature by just 1 degree typically can take up to one millenia, and we've seen a rise of 0.7 degress just in the past 100 years or so.


Incorrect.

Younger Dryas Period: (Happened between 12,800 to 11,500 years ago) - A rapid cooling lasting around 1300 years followed by a rapid warming. Approximate temps and timeframes were: Cooling of about 10°C within 10+ years, and then warming of about 15°C within about 40-50 years.


So to stake claim that an increase of 0.7 °C over a period of 100 years as being unprecedented is silly, to say the least.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Yes and only 2 things can cause that type of dramatic climate change in such a short time, a supervolcano or a meteor impact, and the evidence suggests a meteor

www.pnas.org...



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Yes and only 2 things can cause that type of dramatic climate change in such a short time, a supervolcano or a meteor impact, and the evidence suggests a meteor

www.pnas.org...



Incorrect.

There are differing arguments by various scientists, but to state that there are "only 2 things that can cause dramatic climate change" is just simply wrong.

With regards to the Younger Dryas, the cause most widely accepted by scientists is a change in the thermohaline circulation (the same idea that was in "The Day After Tomorrow" movie):

NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


yes and so? If you read the link you provided it says a huge amount of melt water entered the north atlantic ocean. This meltwater came from North America the same continent the meteor impacted on.
The mass extinctions during this period also provides the evidence. The Earth has never seen extinctions durings its phases coming in or out of the glacial periods. Something must have happened during the last iceage to cause these mass extinctions. The meteor could have been the reason why so much melt water had entered the ocean.
sceptics claim there has to be a crater...The icesheets during that time were at least one mile thick.....

blogs.discovermagazine.com...
edit on 13-2-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


yes and so? If you read the link you provided it says a huge amount of melt water entered the north atlantic ocean. This meltwater came from North America the same continent the meteor impacted on.
The mass extinctions during this period also provides the evidence. The Earth has never seen extinctions durings its phases coming in or out of the glacial periods. Something must have happened during the last iceage to cause these mass extinctions. The meteor could have been the reason why so much melt water had entered the ocean.
sceptics claim there has to be a crater...The icesheets during that time were at least one mile thick.....

blogs.discovermagazine.com...
edit on 13-2-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)


Rapid melting occurred across the entire upper portion of the northern hemisphere... we were in the middle of transitioning from the Pleistocene ice age into our current Holocene interglacial.


The Younger Dryas occurred during the transition from the last glacial period into the present interglacial (the Holocene). During this time, the continental ice sheets were rapidly melting and adding freshwater to the North Atlantic


I guess you didn't read all of the report from the NOAA.

No where in there does it state that a meteor impact was the cause of the rapid melting. It's just simply understood that rapid melting occurs at the end of ice ages. "Rapid" for all intents and purposes on a geological timescale could mean 100 years, 1000 years... but at some point the thermohaline circulation became unbalanced in salinity and density.

If you want to hypothesize that it was caused my a meteor impact, that's your perogative. But don't try to argue it as absolute undebatable fact, because it is not.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 

I have read and you are ignoring the evidence care to explain the mass extinctions and why didnt the melt water cause the north atlantic circulation to stop in other glacial periods? Why hasnt there been other mass extinctions when the planet moves out from a glacial period?
From the same link there was another period where another large amount of meltwater that entered the ocean and didnt cause the circulation to stop. Scientists cant explain why this didnt and can only theorize as to why.


A vigorous thermohaline circulation might be less susceptible to freshwater discharges.

Note the word "might" if this was true then why is our current circulation slowing down? If a vigorous circulation is less susceptible to freshwater discharges of such magnitude then the freshwater coming off Greenlands icesheets shouldnt have an effect should it?
Also if melting icesheets naturally pouring in water caused the circulation to stop then why hasnt it done so everytime the earth comes out from a glacial period? Too manty unanswered questions that can only be answered if a metor strike was involved. Questions like what are these diamond fragments found in a sediment layer which can only be produced by a high impact event?

edit on 14-2-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by CranialSponge
 

I have read and you are ignoring the evidence care to explain the mass extinctions and why didnt the melt water cause the north atlantic circulation to stop in other glacial periods? From the same link there was another period where another large amount of meltwater that entered the ocean and didnt cause the circulation to stop. Scientists cant explain why this didnt and can only theorize as to why.


A vigorous thermohaline circulation might be less susceptible to freshwater discharges.

Note the word "might" if this was true then why is our current circulation slowing down? If a vigorous circulation is less susceptible to freshwater discharges of such magnitude then the freshwater coming off Greenlands icesheets shouldnt have an effect should it?
Also if melting icesheets naturally pouring in water caused the circulation to stop then why hasnt it done so everytime the earth comes out from a glacial period? Too manty unanswered questions that can only be answered if a metor strike was involved. Questions like what are these diamond fragments found in a sediment layer which can only be produced by a high impact event?



Umm, you do realize that the mass extinction of the mammoth occurred about 10,000 years ago.... that would be roughly 1000+ years AFTER the Younger Dryas period and roughly 2500+ years AFTER the last big ice age.

You're completely confusing your timelines.

Your attempt to back up your claim that "only 2 things could cause a drastic climate change" is failing miserably. There are more than just 2 hypotheses out there, plain and simple. Stop trying to claim yours as absolute fact.

It's not a very scientific approach.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


No I am referring to the mass extinctions of North American large animals. Mammoths sabre tooth tigers camels horses etc

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


No I am referring to the mass extinctions of North American large animals. Mammoths sabre tooth tigers camels horses etc

en.wikipedia.org...


Yes, that's right.

Do you see mass sudden extinction in there associated during the younger dryas timeline ?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


yes what could have caused it......ITs not as if its the planets 1st time coming out from an ice age........



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroUnlmtd



Also, if global warming is actually happening, where do you think it would start to be the most notable? Near the equator, or near the poles? I see most of the cities you choose are pretty close to the equator except the vostok station.

Most are near the equator ? Really ? Having probs with your geography perhaps ?
Last time I checked, London, Moscow, New York, Sydney, Adelaide, Tokyo, Beijing, Nome and Auckland were nowhere near being located on or near the equator.



I agree, this data itself is dismissable as it is only a 15 year period, you need to take temps from before we started affecting our environment as that will paint the whole picture for you

Cherry picking your data much ?
If global warming were an established fact, then by definition we should be seeing temp increases on a yearly scale, even if only very small. But even small increases should add up and be noticeable in 15 years worth of observational data.
If visible increases over 15 years is NOT evident, then you have 2 options to choose from:
(1) Global warming does not exist
(2) Global warming (if any) ceased prior to 1997.



... the past 15 years OF COURSE there is no noticeable temp differences, we've been at this polluted point for a while now , look further back then reproduce that same answer , we'll wait.

Please explain why there's no "noticeable temp" increases in the last 15 years.
Does global warming pick and choose which years it will affect ... and did it decide to take a 15 year break from heating up the planet ?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


yes what could have caused it......ITs not as if its the planets 1st time coming out from an ice age........


Maybe what you're not realizing is that there are two points to the younger dryas... the sudden starting point and then the sudden ending point.

A meteor could explain the sudden ending point, very possible... or a number of other possibilities... but what could have caused the sudden starting point at a time when the interglacial was already kicking in ? That's where the thermohaline hypothesis makes sense.

A meteor certainly couldn't have caused the start of it and then 1300 years later caused the end of it.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
However it does this over thousands of years not just a few decades. Rises in global average temperature by just 1 degree typically can take up to one millenia, and we've seen a rise of 0.7 degress just in the past 100 years or so.


Incorrect.

Younger Dryas Period: (Happened between 12,800 to 11,500 years ago) - A rapid cooling lasting around 1300 years followed by a rapid warming. Approximate temps and timeframes were: Cooling of about 10°C within 10+ years, and then warming of about 15°C within about 40-50 years.


So to stake claim that an increase of 0.7 °C over a period of 100 years as being unprecedented is silly, to say the least.


I was talking averages over the geological timescale and I was talking increases of temperature. Possibly you should read posts more carefully before you go off on your silly little tangents.

Yes there are documented accounts of rapid ups and downs, the little ice age is another, but each was caused by measurable natural phenomenon. There is no change in natural phenomenon to ascribe this heating event to except human input. No ocean currents or wind currents have changed

Besides, these are both natural cooling events. Natural heating is altogether different and does not happen at nearly such a rapid pace except as a rebound to a rapid natural cooling event as the world's climate re-stabilizes. I challenge you to find a rapid global increase in temperature which is faster than 1 degree C/thousand years which was not followed first by a rapid cooling event. Possibly you and the OP can compare excel spreadsheets together.

Besides, do you know what caused both these cooling events? A large influx of of fresh water from the Northern Continental ice sheets following very gradual heating events. Imagine how screwed the world will be following an even more rapid influx of fresh water caused by a rapid man made heating event.

Also as man has completely fragmented most wilderness areas around the world global flora and fauna are hardly in any position to respond even to gradual change, let alone rapid changes

Get your facts straight first CranialSponge and then look at the bigger picture instead of being argumentative for the sake of it.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Cherry picking your data much ?
If global warming were an established fact, then by definition we should be seeing temp increases on a yearly scale, even if only very small. But even small increases should add up and be noticeable in 15 years worth of observational data.
If visible increases over 15 years is NOT evident, then you have 2 options to choose from:
(1) Global warming does not exist
(2) Global warming (if any) ceased prior to 1997.

.............................

Please explain why there's no "noticeable temp" increases in the last 15 years.
Does global warming pick and choose which years it will affect ... and did it decide to take a 15 year break from heating up the planet ?


The only person who has decided there are only two options is you, and unfortunately for you they're both wrong. We are talking long term averages here, not a guaranteed increase every single year. The global climate doesn't won't always rise and fall in a noticeable way just because you haven't included enough long term data in your graphs. Also cities are biased anyway as areas with large amounts of buildings and skyscrapers act as heat sinks.

The simplest reason that global warming seems to have flat lined in the past few years most likely we are in a period where we would have in fact gone through a time of moderate global cooling, but this cooling has been offset by the human induced global warming which is and will continue to affect the world well into the future....... whether you accept it or not.

Show us all your graphs again in 20 years time. Then they might actually mean something.



edit on 14/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 



Global average temperatures ?

You're kidding me right... do we know what global average temperatures are prior to thermometers and satellite data ? No we do not, other than proxy data pulled from limited areas which only indicates temperatures (OR wet/dry periods) from those areas and are of absolute no value in determining global average temperatures.

Scientists can't even agree on what the temperatures where during the MWP or LIA, let alone whether or not the MWP was on a global scale or just the northern hemisphere or just England. Why ? Because proxy data is iffy at the best of times.

But you're going to claim that we know global average temperatures and its ups and downs to 1/10th of a degree throughout the past 13,000 years ?!

An increase of 0.7°C over a period of 100 years is considered out of whack when we haven't a clue to that preciseness of temperature readings globally at any other time....? Please.

Now whether the MWP was a global anomoly or not (because scientists still can't agree) is neither here nor there other than the fact that it did not follow a "rapid" cooling era.

For all we know there could have been many rapid warming periods lasting more than a 100 years each time because the simple fact is we have no way of precisely measuring it globally.

You're right, a little bit of knowledge IS a dangerous thing.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
And by the way, just for the record... I do not agree with the OP's simplistic claims because his data pulling is just as bad as the proxy data we're trying to utilize as historical global absolutes.

I only stepped in here to correct the mythology that an increase of 0.7°C over a period of 100 years is supposedly unprecedented, unnatural, and has only happened now.

The simple fact is science does not know precise measurements globally since the start of the Holocene, and for climatologists to try to claim like as if they do know is a joke at best and blatant hubris at worst.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 



Global average temperatures ?

You're kidding me right... do we know what global average temperatures are prior to thermometers and satellite data ? No we do not, other than proxy data pulled from limited areas which only indicates temperatures (OR wet/dry periods) from those areas and are of absolute no value in determining global average temperatures.

Scientists can't even agree on what the temperatures where during the MWP or LIA, let alone whether or not the MWP was on a global scale or just the northern hemisphere or just England. Why ? Because proxy data is iffy at the best of times.

But you're going to claim that we know global average temperatures and its ups and downs to 1/10th of a degree throughout the past 13,000 years ?!


No I never claimed this. Again it would help you in your obvious quest to look smarter than everybody else if you actually read peoples posts. Most proxy data is accurate within 2 degrees Celsius. This means we have a high, a low, and in most cases what's in between +/- 2 degrees. We have multiple proxies from multiple sources which all more or less agree.

Put this altogether and you get a fairly accurate figure called the global average temperature. No where does this data show any rapid rises in temperature which did not first follow a very rapid cooling event and were the result of global temperatures simply re-stabilizing. Hell we have ice cores which stretch back nearly 1 million years and these are precise enough to show these little tenths of a degree you're so interested in.


An increase of 0.7°C over a period of 100 years is considered out of whack when we haven't a clue to that preciseness of temperature readings globally at any other time....? Please.

Now whether the MWP was a global anomoly or not (because scientists still can't agree) is neither here nor there other than the fact that it did not follow a "rapid" cooling era.

For all we know there could have been many rapid warming periods lasting more than a 100 years each time because the simple fact is we have no way of precisely measuring it globally.

You're right, a little bit of knowledge IS a dangerous thing.


The little ice age is something that was quite noticeable to the everyday person and was the only one recorded in 1000's of years of documented history (again no records ever of a rapid increase in global temperature). This was a drop in temperature probably less than the 0.7 degree rise we are seeing now and even that happened over a much greater period of time than the rise we're seeing now.

Although scientists do not know precisely why it happened, but the three leading hypothesis - lows in solar radiation, increase volcanic activity or change in ocean currents are all things which in today's world are very measurable. Yet we are seeing none of those things today.

Here's another challenge for you since you failed quite miserably at the first one. Try and find any naturally occurring phenomenon which we attribute the current rise in global temperature to.

Look I do agree that each source of information taken by itself can be open to interpretation and it would be stupid to make any major decisions based on the results of one Antarctic ice core, or Mg/Ca planktic and benthic foraminifera from somewhere else. But when looked at as a whole and then compared to the overwhelming amount of data we have today it paints a pretty undeniable picture.


Originally posted by CranialSponge
And by the way, just for the record... I do not agree with the OP's simplistic claims because his data pulling is just as bad as the proxy data we're trying to utilize as historical global absolutes.

I only stepped in here to correct the mythology that an increase of 0.7°C over a period of 100 years is supposedly unprecedented, unnatural, and has only happened now.

The simple fact is science does not know precise measurements globally since the start of the Holocene, and for climatologists to try to claim like as if they do know is a joke at best and blatant hubris at worst.


We have inaccuracies of +/- 2 degrees ranging across temperature spans of 20+ degrees over a known period of time. You do not need to be accurate to the tenth degree to get a fairly precise picture of what's going on.


edit on 14/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

The only person who has decided there are only two options is you, and unfortunately for you they're both wrong. We are talking long term averages here, not a guaranteed increase every single year.


Hmmmm ... lets see now ...

1. Does each year see additional increases in CO2, etc gases being pumped into the atmosphere ? Yep.
2. Is CO2 (and others) considered "greenhouse" gases that help trap global heat ? Yep
3. If "greenhouse gas" emissions increase each year, then doesn't logic indicate an increase in the heat trapped and therefore an increase in the earth's nett heat value each year ? Yep

However, if you're saying that there are times when there's a nett heat loss or offset, then you need to come up with a theory to account for this heat reduction. Where is this heat going ?

I find it hard to understand how you can be a proponent for global warming and yet when shown 15 consecutive years worth of data showing essentially a flat line graph, you simply dismiss it as inconsequential or irrelevant.
Tell me something ... how many consecutive years would YOU require for the data to be meaningful ? 20 years ? 50 years ? 1000 years perhaps ?

And what if an additional 15 years before, or the 15 years before that, or the 15 years before that, etc all showed essentially a similar flat line graph, would you also dismiss those data points as insignificant ?

If global warming is a fact, then you need to explain the lack of corroborating evidence across 15 years of data points. I assume that you'll agree that we're pumping a heck of a lot more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere now then we were doing 15 years ago. So why isn't there a corresponding increase in temperature reflected in the 15 years worth of data points ? The average monthly high temp for January/July for all those cities spread around the globe is essentially the same now as it was 15 years ago DESPITE the ever increasing volumes of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere during those same 15 years. This doesn't seem in the slightest bit contradictory to you ?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

The only person who has decided there are only two options is you, and unfortunately for you they're both wrong. We are talking long term averages here, not a guaranteed increase every single year.


Hmmmm ... lets see now ...

1. Does each year see additional increases in CO2, etc gases being pumped into the atmosphere ? Yep.
2. Is CO2 (and others) considered "greenhouse" gases that help trap global heat ? Yep
3. If "greenhouse gas" emissions increase each year, then doesn't logic indicate an increase in the heat trapped and therefore an increase in the earth's nett heat value each year ? Yep

However, if you're saying that there are times when there's a nett heat loss or offset, then you need to come up with a theory to account for this heat reduction. Where is this heat going ?


This is your theory mate. If you want to convince me that it is meaningful in anyway then it is up to you to rule this out. Global temperatures fluctuate all the time by small fractions of a degree so in order to prove that your 15 years of flat lining data is something which is not being offset by a moderate cooling period, the onus lies on you.

Also if we take your theory to the logical conclusion then global average temperatures should stay the exact same every year. Yet they don't....

Even CranialSponge thinks your data is bunk. Look mate, I applaud your attempt but it is far to simplistic and your data points are in the wrong places and too few in number.


I find it hard to understand how you can be a proponent for global warming and yet when shown 15 consecutive years worth of data showing essentially a flat line graph, you simply dismiss it as inconsequential or irrelevant.


15 years may seem like a long time to you but any climate study worth its salt goes back quite a few decades and includes data points all over the globe.


Tell me something ... how many consecutive years would YOU require for the data to be meaningful ? 20 years ? 50 years ? 1000 years perhaps ?

And what if an additional 15 years before, or the 15 years before that, or the 15 years before that, etc all showed essentially a similar flat line graph, would you also dismiss those data points as insignificant ?


Like I said above at least an additional 20 on top of the data you have now will start making your data somewhat more meaningful, but you also need more data points away from major cities and possibly some across the ocean as well.

The data points themselves are not insignificant, but they are skewed. However over a longer period of time it would still be more meaningful than what you have now. Even one data point has meaning if we look at it over a long enough period of time such as the 900,000 year old ice core from Antarctica.


If global warming is a fact, then you need to explain the lack of corroborating evidence across 15 years of data points. I assume that you'll agree that we're pumping a heck of a lot more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere now then we were doing 15 years ago. So why isn't there a corresponding increase in temperature reflected in the 15 years worth of data points ? The average monthly high temp for January/July for all those cities spread around the globe is essentially the same now as it was 15 years ago DESPITE the ever increasing volumes of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere during those same 15 years. This doesn't seem in the slightest bit contradictory to you ?


One thing you have to consider is all these temperatures are taken on the Earths surface, yet the Earths atmosphere stretches up 100km. Just because we see no change currently reflected on the surface of the Earth does not mean the changes aren't taking place somewhere else.

As for your data, if it were to continue to flat line for another decade or so then yes it would have some meaning. But 15 years is far to short a period of time to have any meaning at all.

Like I said above, get back to me in 20 years time.



edit on 14/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join