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.


Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by OrchusGhule

Wow, way to inject a bunch of b***s**t into my post. You obviously missed the point, which is not surprising considering your offended, over-reactionary tone.

Yep, t'was certainly a great spewing of b***s**t, by me, into your post. Perhaps I did indeed miss the point, which I agree would not be surprising in the slightest. You indicate my tone as being the reason you failed to raise a single eyebrow, I would probably just point to a large stack of similar incidents involving blatant point-missing in my past; which not only justifies your lack of surprise, it demonstrates such incidents occur with enough regularity to preclude even the slightest bit of surprise at the initial lack of surprise.

That being said...I went and read through my earlier post just now and yeah, I was snappish(too much caffeine, too little sleep), which is unnecessary and unproductive, and I normally try to avoid coming off like that.
I don't always succeed, this is one of those times. My apologies.

Nice wall of talking points though.

Thanks! I think. They are not really 'talking points' in the way that term is used in modern political discourse, i.e. partisan think-tank generates poll-tested phrases which are then distributed by media for various reasons(argumentum as nauseam, proof by assertion, facilitating a homogenous response to a given argument, etc.) For one thing, they are my own arguments, and I am no think-tank(as I'm sure you'll agree).

However, if you meant 'talking points' in the same way the phrase is used and defined in formal debate: "a clear statement designed to persuasively support a position taken in an issue" ...then yes, they are talking points, and it was a rather nice wall of them wasn't it, thank you again for saying so.

You assume very much about me, when you know absolutely nothing. You might be surprised to find out that this computer is 1 of only 3 electronic devices I own, and that it runs on power generated from the sun, collected from a 10 year old solar array. I do not own a car, I grow almost all of my own food, and I could go on but it would probably be wasted on you. I've not burned fossil fuels in over a decade. You're barking up the wrong tree kid.

The things you say in the middle of this paragraph are very interesting, and I will get back to that momentarily, after a brief response to the things said at the top and bottom.
I'm sure I did form some assumptions about you, and no doubt some of them were unwarranted and entirely false--for instance, I had the idea you were my age or younger. This was not an overt idea; and indeed I was totally unaware of it until I read the last sentence of the above paragraph where you call me "kid."
Since I switched to my current avatar, I have on occasion been referred to as 'kid' or 'young man', and while I have sometimes been intrigued as to their possible motives for doing so, I was never much bothered otherwise. Same this time except it seemed incongruous somehow, and I had to sort of take the whole idea out and look at it before I could figure out it that it seemed odd because I had this hazy, never consciously considered idea that you were younger, specifically the range of my younger brother's friends. Considered further, it seemed that the likely reason for this unconscious assumption is that all of the seriously involved, seriously fervent, "save the x, stop the y" environmentalists that I know personally are, for whatever reason, in that age group.
So yeah, that was interesting and enlightening.
But even say I "assumed very much about you?" My sole overt assumption, which I clearly stated in my post, was that you had been spending way too much time reading environmentalist doomporn. But I'm getting the idea you might have taken everything else I wrote as though they were specific statements about you? If so, that is not the case and was not the intention. The intention, especially the parts about the car(which was a story about my cousin, and I know for certain I did not assume you were my cousin) and the bit about nature at the end, was about putting things in perspective.

I hate environmentalist for the exact reasons you mention. They bitch and moan about destroying the planet and then go jump in their electric cars. But again you assumed I was one of those, didn't you?

Hahaha. This is awesome. But to answer the question at the end: Yes, I did, sans electric car. Can you blame me? Because if your first post was not one huge bitchmoan about destruction of the planet, then I don't know what is.

I have more to say but am out of characters and this is probably OT for this thread anyway. Drop me a PM, I've been moving the family home off-grid in steps and am interested in talking about that too.

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Human carbon output is 100 times what natural sources are (like Volcanoes).

You sure about that? The IPCC's own figures (in AR4) show that natural yearly CO2-emissons are 27 times greater than human CO2-emissons. The figures given are: Natural CO2-emissions/year = 771 gigatonnes. Human CO2-emissions/year = 29 gigatonnes. Natural sources are far greater.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

Sorry -- that's right. The point I SHOULD have been making is that Human CO2 output is much larger than the sporadic CO2 outputs that "change" (volcanoes) -- not counting the normal cyclical outputs (such as trees rotting). In a closed system, even a tiny but of unbalanced output can add up over time -- and that's exactly what has happened. LINK

The human emissions add to the natural amounts but isn't removed.

Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm

I think the rise in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is the terminal indicator here. The Oceans have absorbed the increased output and apparently, the scientists feel like they have reached a saturation point. The heat sink and carbon absorption of the oceans will now cease absorbing our excess because the oceans have a 50 to 60 year cycle -- now the water that absorbed the excess will be releasing it as it flows up from the ocean depths. So the "free lunch" is over, and climate change is going to start happening at a faster rate.

Crystalized methane deposits have been releasing in the oceans as the water gets steadily warmer (like the poles, the deep water is warming faster). This and the Siberian perma frosts might be a trigger event, releasing billions of tons of greenhouse gases.

>> I think we've waited too long, and the "point of no return" has been reached. Right now, we are merely deciding if the change happens violently. The earth will probably reach a new equilibrium point hundreds of years from now -- we just have to decide if it's one we can live with.

It's really sad how the oil companies have manipulated public perception in the US, much like the Tobacco industry. I'm not 100% sure if all the Climate Science is predictive -- but I am 100% sure that Big Oil is behind efforts to create doubt and ruin any chance of keeping this debate scientific. Whatever gets America on a clean energy path -- and kills off these parasites, will be good for the environment and our society.

new topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in