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.


can i tell you something?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You are so confused.

I said Pollution! I meant pollution! And I still mean pollution!

I could give a giddly-f# about your trying to hide it as misplaced CO2.

Your so called clean coal isn't. Your so called non-polluting power plants are polluting; and that has effected the planet. Its a fact. The mercury and other toxins in the air created by such plants have impacted the environment.

You can not pump so much crap into the air and not effect the planet.

It can also be stated that causing steam to be generated has an effect as well.

You can not say that creating steam and pollution doesn't have an effect on the environment either. You cannot make any form of energy just vanish, science does't work that way. You burn a fuel you create byproducts, you heat water you create steam which is a form of energy, that energy has to go someplace and do something. (Thermal updrafts for 1.) It is simply the way it works. It is still a man made change on the environment.

There is a vast difference in what a human exudes in a breathe versus what any burned fossil creates when burned. Quit trying to confuse the issue. Trying to say the pollution is not happening just because there is CO2 in the gasses, along with other carbon particulate matter and waste; is just a way of lying to yourself and others.

The fact is this, POLLUTION effects the planet.
Its a truth, and a fact.

But hell I will say it again.

Pollution effects the environment.
Which also means: Air pollution effects the environment.
If you are delusional enough to ignore those facts, you are still wrong.


posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:46 PM

Originally posted by pasiphae
the whole reason i even became a member in the first place was due to this forum... it's not the same as it was.
edit on 15-6-2012 by pasiphae because: (no reason given)

Yes. Is there no way back.
edit on 26-6-2012 by smirkley because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Moshpet
There is a vast difference in what a human exudes in a breathe versus what any burned fossil creates when burned. Quit trying to confuse the issue. Trying to say the pollution is not happening just because there is CO2 in the gasses, along with other carbon particulate matter and waste; is just a way of lying to yourself and others.

Wow... who is truly confused is you... I know that there are toxins that we should deal with, such as smog, but they are NOT CO2...

That's the whole point... Stop trying to shift the blame on me when you haven't read what I have posted...

All that the UN, and even green groups have been doing is shift the blame ON CO2...

All the UN, and green groups are doing and demanding for is FOR TAXES ON CO2, and for CO2 to be sequestered...nothing on the real toxic gases and liquids that are being spilled...

Water vapor is also emitted, in small quantities but it happens, in certain industries. Does it mean that water vapor is also pollution?...


All the taxes, and plans that the UN, world governments, and green organizations have been demanding to be done is on CO2... not on ANY of the real toxins being emitted daily during industry...

Nice try to blame me for something I have actually explained several times...

edit on 27-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:58 PM

Originally posted by smirkley

Yes. Is there no way back.

And tell me is your response any evidence AT ALL about what is being talked about?...

In fact the response by most AWG believers shows that IT IS YOU the ones who use insults, and have to use claims like "everyone who disagrees with us is an oil kook" to try to push your views and AGENDA.... But hey for your kind that is proof enough...

edit on 27-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:36 AM
About the claims how warming "is bad for plants and trees"...

Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.

On the claim that the current period is warmer than past periods like the Medieval Warm Period...

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.

The fact that events like the Medieval Warm Periods were global in nature...

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
Journal Climatic Change
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online)
Issue Volume 26, Numbers 2-3 / March, 1994
DOI 10.1007/BF01092411
Pages 143-169
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, February 07, 2005

Jean M. Grove1 and Roy Switsur2

(1) Girton College, Cambridge, U.K.
(2) Wolfson College, Cambridge, U.K.

Received: 22 September 1992 Revised: 12 October 1993

Abstract It is hypothesised that the Medieval Warm Period was preceded and followed by periods of moraine deposition associated with glacier expansion. Improvements in the methodology of radiocarbon calibration make it possible to convert radiocarbon ages to calendar dates with greater precision than was previously possible. Dating of organic material closely associated with moraines in many montane regions has reached the point where it is possible to survey available information concerning the timing of the medieval warm period. The results suggest that it was a global event occurring between about 900 and 1250 A.D., possibly interrupted by a minor readvance of ice between about 1050 and 1150 A.D.

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:56 AM

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.

Originally published in Science Express on 19 June 2008
Science 1 August 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5889, pp. 680 - 684
DOI: 10.1126/science.1157707
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years
Jørgen Peder Steffensen,1* Katrine K. Andersen,1 Matthias Bigler,1,2 Henrik B. Clausen,1 Dorthe Dahl-Jensen,1 Hubertus Fischer,2,3 Kumiko Goto-Azuma,4 Margareta Hansson,5 Sigfús J. Johnsen,1 Jean Jouzel,6 Valérie Masson-Delmotte,6 Trevor Popp,7 Sune O. Rasmussen,1 Regine Röthlisberger,2,8 Urs Ruth,3 Bernhard Stauffer,2 Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen,1 Árn E. Sveinbjörnsdóttir,9 Anders Svensson,1 James W. C. White7

The last two abrupt warmings at the onset of our present warm interglacial period, interrupted by the Younger Dryas cooling event, were investigated at high temporal resolution from the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core. The deuterium excess, a proxy of Greenland precipitation moisture source, switched mode within 1 to 3 years over these transitions and initiated a more gradual change (over 50 years) of the Greenland air temperature, as recorded by stable water isotopes. The onsets of both abrupt Greenland warmings were slightly preceded by decreasing Greenland dust deposition, reflecting the wetting of Asian deserts. A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:59 AM

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 0.2permil to 0.7permil 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.

edit on 27-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:02 AM

Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity
William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University
Prepared for the 2nd Annual Heartland Institute sponsored conference on Climate Change. New York City, March 8-10, 2009
Paper also available at (under News)

This paper discusses how the variation in the global ocean’s Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) resulting from changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) and deep water Surrounding Antarctica Subsidence (SAS) can be the primary cause of climate change. (MOC = THC + SAS) is the likely cause of most of the global warming that has been observed since the start of the industrial revolution (~1850) and for the more recent global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s. Changes of the MOC since 1995 are hypothesized to have lead to the cessation of global warming since 1998 and to the beginning of a weak global cooling that has occurred since 2001. This weak cooling is projected to go on for the next couple of decades.

Recent GCM global warming scenarios assume that a slightly stronger hydrologic cycle (due to the increase in CO2) will cause additional upper-level tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness. Such vapor-cloudiness increases are assumed to allow the small initial warming due to increased CO2 to be unrealistically multiplied 2-4 or more times. This is where most of the global warming from the GCMs comes from – not the warming resulting from the CO2 increase by itself but the large extra warming due to the assumed increase of upper tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness. As CO2 increases, it does not follow that the net global upper-level water vapor and cloudiness will increase significantly.

Observations of upper tropospheric water vapor over the last 3-4 decades from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) reanalysis data and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) data show that upper tropospheric water vapor appears to undergo a small decrease while Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) undergoes a small increase. This is opposite to what has been programmed into the GCMs. The predicted global warming due to a doubling of CO2 has been erroneously exaggerated by the GCMs due to this water vapor feedback.

CO2 increases without positive water vapor feedback could only have been responsible for about 0.1-0.2oC of the 0.6-0.7oC global mean surface temperature warming that has been observed since the early 20th century. Assuming a doubling of CO2 by the late 21st century (assuming no positive water vapor feedback), we should likely expect to see no more than about 0.3-0.5oC global surface warming and certainly not the 2-5oC warming that has been projected by the GCMs.

Global warming is not so hot:
1003 was worse, researchers find
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.

From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.

To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."

edit on 27-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:04 AM
Peer-reviewed evidence from ALL OVER THE WORLD, says the same thing. Periods like the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were GLOBAL events and were WARMER than at any time in the current Climate Change cycle.

The AGW Claim/lie/scam is based on flawed GCMs and ASSumptions which ae wrong...

There is not even an attempt to model such complex climate details, as GCMsare too coarse for such purposes. When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse protagonist)was asked why GCMs do not allow for the stratosphere’s warming by the suns ultravioletradation and its impact on the circulation in the troposphere, he answered: “This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into models”[8]. Since there are other solar-terrestrial relationships which are too complex such as, for example, the dynamics of cloud coverage modulated by the solar wind, it is no wonder that the predictions based on GCMs do not conform to climate reality.

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:12 AM

Copyright © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Asian monsoon oscillations in the northeastern Qinghai–Tibet Plateau since the late glacial as interpreted from visible reflectance of Qinghai Lake sediments

Junfeng Jia, , , Ji Shenb, 1, , William Balsamc, 2, , Jun Chena, 3, , Lianwen Liua, 4, and Xingqi Liub, 5,

aState Key Laboratory of Mineral Deposit Research, Institute of Surficial Geochemistry, Department of Earth Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China

bKey Laboratory of Lake Sedimentation and Environment, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China

cDepartment of Geology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA

Received 28 July 2004; revised 28 January 2005; accepted 15 February 2005. Editor: E. Boyle. Available online 1 April 2005.

Qinghai Lake is a large saline lake on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau of central Asia that is effected by both the Indian and Asian monsoons. We used reflectance spectroscopy to characterize the sediments in a 795-cm long core taken from the southeastern part of the lake. Sediment redness, which is related to iron oxide content, seems to monitor paleoclimatic changes in the core. Iron oxides appear to be eroded from nearby red beds or loess deposits and are transported by fluvial means into the lake. Thus, redness increases at times of increased precipitation, that is, as monsoon strength increases. Our redness monsoon proxy shows climate changes on several times scales. On a millennial scale, it records humid conditions during the Early and Mid-Holocene. From about 4200 to 2300 yr BP, low redness values suggest a two-millennial long dry period, which in the Late Holocene is followed by a more humid period. On a centennial scale, the redness proxy records not only the Little Ice Age, but also the Medieval Warm Period, the Dark Ages Cool Period and the Roman Warm Period. Time series analysis of the redness record indicates a 200 yr frequency, which corresponds to the de Vries solar cycle suggesting that, in addition to insolation changes resulting from orbital variations, solar forcing also results from cyclic changes in the suns luminosity.

Keywords: Asian monsoon; diffuse reflectance spectrophotometry; Qinghai Lake; sediment redness; iron oxides; solar forcing


Copyright © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Temperature responses to quasi-100-yr solar variability during the past 6000 years based on δ18O of peat cellulose in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, China

Hai Xua, b, , , , Yetang Hongb, Qinghua Linb, Yongxuan Zhub, Bing Hongb and Hongbo Jiangb

aState Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Fenghui South Road, High-tech Zone, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, PO Box 710075, China

bState Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, 550002, China

Received 28 October 2004; revised 17 July 2005; accepted 19 July 2005. Available online 22 August 2005.

During the past 6000 years, the temperature variation trend inferred from δ18O of peat cellulose in a peat core from Hongyuan (eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, southwestern China) is similar to the atmospheric 14C concentration trend and the modeled solar output trend. The general trend of Hongyuan δ18O during the past millennium also coincides well with the atmospheric 14C concentration trend, the 10Be concentration trend in an ice core from the South Pole, the reconstructed total solar irradiance trend, as well as the modeled solar output trend. In addition, temperature events also correspond well to solar perturbations during the past 6000 years. Therefore, the driving force of Holocene temperature variations should be properly ascribed to solar activity. The spectrum analysis further illustrates that quasi-100-yr fluctuation of solar activity was probably responsible for temperature variations in northeast Qinghai–Tibet plateau during the past 6000 years.

Keywords: Peat; Oxygen isotopic composition; Temperature; Solar activity; Qinghai–Tibet plateau; China

I could keep posting FACT after FACT that shows the current Climate Change is neither the warmest, nor the most extreme, or faster "that has ever happened on Earth"...

edit on 27-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:41 AM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
About the claims how warming "is bad for plants and trees"...

What claims?

And what relevance has it in any case to the discussion on whether or not human activity - including, but not in any way limited to, carbon emissions - is causing global warming over and above what might naturally be occuring?

It's a straw man. The fact that an increase in CO2 is not detrimental to plant life is NOT an argument that human activity does not affect climate.

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

I could keep posting FACT after FACT that shows the current Climate Change is neither the warmest, nor the most extreme, or faster "that has ever happened on Earth"...

So? More straw men.

That proves humans are not affecting the climate today in a manner which may be detrimental to us today, how?

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:46 AM
A big part of the problem of getting regular people's attention is the shoddy science and medieval mindset of some on the "side" of climate change, such as those who practically blacklisted peers who dared to ask uncomfortable questions or for actual data. Also, the lockstep embrasure of many on the "climate change" side of radical political stances has muddied the waters.

Add that to a collective media, with some rare exceptions, who routinely sensationalize information or outright distort it and who cannot seem to articulate who/what/when/where/why and how when it comes to matters of science or economics unless it suits their political goals and you have a mess. Don't even get me started on science education (of course with exceptions) in schools and even colleges...

I think most regular people would be shocked and disturbed about the state of our oceans, drinking water, soil, food supply and air and disturbed by the effects on nearly every living thing just in our lifetime.
I do think people care and I even believe MOST companies care as well, few humans want to destroy the planet. I believe corrupt politicians have given some companies a free pass while they publicly decry their actions, they accept checks, invest in them and make sweetheart deals with them that are public but rarely understood (such as limiting fines and cleanup costs, not informing the public of verified health threats to their communities and minimizing effects).

There are many completely irresponsible scientists who created some of these situations, such as GMO, pesticides, chemicals and pharmaceuticals that they had every reason to think could and would harm people, and yet felt godlike and decided to forge ahead and risk our futures.

A good roadmap to future change: stop demonizing other people and business in general. Start speaking of verified facts and demand accountability from our scientific community, elected leaders and businesses and start working with others. Whiny superiority complexes get us nowhere.

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:57 AM

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

So? More straw men.

That proves humans are not affecting the climate today in a manner which may be detrimental to us today, how?

Wow... How about you scroll back to read instead of posting "strawman" arguments with NO EVIDENCE for YOUR arguments?...

Either LEARN how to make a proper argument and respond to it, or just don't debate the topic at all...

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by sayaangel

You are right, and a lot of people are not willing to inform themselves. Would some companies even use science facts as proof that "it is ok to keept throwing into our rivers, lakes, and oceans, as well as the atmosphere REAL toxic chemicals?... Of course there are, just like there are companies who jumped into the AGW bandwagon and are now saying that AGW is true and are making money from some other sources of power they are using.

The fact is that EVERYONE has shifted the blame on a gas which is not detrimental at all to the environment, and in fact is benefitial instead of trying to do something about the real chemicals and gases which are released daily.

CO2 is not the problem.

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Where have I introduced a straw man into this discussion on whether or not human activity is causing climate change? I have pointed out in my first post in the thread what I believe to be some of the problems with such discussions on the internet, but that is all.

No-one here is refuting that increased levels of CO2 may be good for plants (although there are caveats to that) or that warming has occurred in the past.

Nor is anyone denying that human activities are detrimental to the environment in other ways - though some of the other pollution you talk about IS a contributory factor in climate change - brown clouds, for example.
edit on 27-6-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:37 AM

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
It's a straw man. The fact that an increase in CO2 is not detrimental to plant life is NOT an argument that human activity does not affect climate.

The fact that CO2 has been higher most of the time during the history of Earth and there have been COOLING periods during such times is evidence that CO2 does not causes the warming claimed by the AGW camp...

The fact that CO2 LAGS behind temperatures by an average 800 years shows that TEMPERATURES control CO2 levels, not the other way around.

The Earth has been warming since the 1600s, almost 250 years before CO2 levels even began to increase.

BTW, in case you didn't know as the atmosphere warms it can hold more moisture which in turn warms more the Troposphere, and the more it keeps warming the more the atmosphere can hold moisture which again increases temperatures and causes a feedback effect which has been WRONGLY attributed to CO2.

Worldwide borehole temperatures, temperatures taken from deep underground, have shown an increase in warming since the 1600s deep in the Earth's crust for the past 500 years, and it has increased sharply since the middle of the 1800s.

If CO2 levels increase the temperatures as claimed by the AGW camp then why during past time periods when the levels of CO2 increased there was no increase in temperatures?...

In fact there have been times when instead of warming HIGH atmopsheric CO2 levels have existed during COOLING cycles...

That is what proves the fact that CO2 does not causes the warming claimed by your AGW religion.

edit on 27-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
No-one here is refuting that increased levels of CO2 may be good for plants (although there are caveats to that) or that warming has occurred in the past.

Again posting from "skepctical science BLOG" which I proved is wrong in the claims they make?...

Nice try... How about you spend some time actually researching and responding my questions as well as the evidence I presented instead of just taking one minute to excerpt from a known AGW religious fanatic website?...

If CO2 is the cause of the warming then why is it that the places with the largest warming have been FAR AWAY from sources of CO2 and pollution, such as large cities?...

Yes, you have posted nothing but strawmans, and red-herrings simply because you really can't debate the topic.

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:45 AM
To the person who claimed that "more CO2 is bad for trees and plants"...

Let's actually hear it from those who deal with atmospheric CO2 to increase harvests in greenhouses...

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) contributes to plant growth as part of the miracle of nature known as photosynthesis. This enables plants to combine Carbon Dioxide and water with the aid of light energy to form sugar. Some of these sugars are converted into complex compounds that increase dry solid plant substances for continued growth to final maturity. However, when the supply of carbon dioxide is cut off, or reduced, the complex plant cell structure cannot utilize the sun's energy fully and growth or development is curtailed.

Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.

The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.

Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.

Actually some people who have greenhouses increase the level of atmospheric CO2 to much higher levels than 550 ppm. BTW to those who don't know it the amount of atmospheric CO2 on Earth is about 380 ppm, so it is NOWHERE near to being fatal for anything, much less plants who actually thrive with more atmospheric CO2...

Anyway further down in the above article you find...

By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased CO2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.

CO2 levels to 550 ppm produced an obvious increase in yield (over 30%), but the greatest benefits were earlier flowering (up to 2 weeks) with an increased percentage of dry matter.

The addition of controlled carbon dioxide provided a remarkable improvement in blossom quality, number and yield. Plants consistently produced many more flowers with 24 to 30 inch stems. Average yield was increased by 39.7%.

Work in experimental stations has shown that crop increases of as much as 29% have been obtained by increasing the CO2 concentration. More desirable firmness and more uniform ripening are also observed.

Let's continue shall we?...

Why you get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with Johnson CO2.
Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process. Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1 ,000 ppm, results are higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1,500 ppm per unit in an average 24' x 200' greenhouse or an equivalent 50,000 cu. ft. volume based on one air change per hour.

Perhaps those people who keep claiming that CO2 is bad for the environment now might understand why when Earth's atmosphere has had 7 and up to 12 times as much CO2 as now there was MORE green biomass, as in more trees, and more plants, not less, and life also flourished on land and in the oceans with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now...

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You forget (again) that CO2 levels are not the only factor that determine global temperature.

However, all else being equal, a world with 280ppm CO2 will be cooler than one with 560ppm CO2.

Yes, warming causes CO2 (and methane) levels to rise naturally (no-one denies this) - but that increase in CO2 then causes more warming. A positive feedback.

(Incidently, there was a good example of the impact of CO2 on temps during the last ice age. When Mount Toba erupted, the aerosols and dusts clouds ushered in the coldest spell of the past 100,000 years - but after they cleared, CO2 remained in the atmosphere and there was then a big increase in global temps, until the CO2 also left the atmosphere and temps fell once more)

Currently, CO2 levels are rising significantly above the levels they would naturally be - there has been no warming in the past few thousand years, indeed, there has been a slight cooling due to declining axial tilt. Assuming the basic science behind the effect CO2 has on atmospheric temperature is correct - and no-one has yet scientifically refuted it, though some refuse to accept it - then temperatures should rise, all else being equal. Of course, some negative feedbacks may also occur to mitigate this rise. I don't think we yet know enough to be sure.

Meanwhile, I personally don't think there's much we can currently do to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions and we'd be better off concentrating on other aspects of human activity that detrimentally affect the climate and in preparing for life in a warmer world.
edit on 27-6-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in