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.
Originally posted by network dude
thanks for the replys. I have been looking for information to substantiate the idea that this is another cycle by trying to find core sample data. That to me seems like a logical way to see what has happened with regards to the climate in the distant past. Taking into account things like volcanic eruptions, wind, and rain data. I found a few things with ice core samples of glaciers and it appeared to show just exactly what I was looking for. While that was very convenient, I am always open to find out I am wrong. I am just not going to be convinced by more lies given to push an agenda. Things like taking pictures of polar bears on melting ice chunks in summer and claiming they are dieing due to their environment shrinking. I want truth, not agenda.
Originally posted by network dude
I am increasingly confused. It's easy for me, since I am not a scientist or weather guesser, I mean forecaster. (just a joke, relax) But when I start discussing that from what evidence I have seen, it appears that the heating and cooling our Earth has been doing seems to be a cycle and not a man made thing. I am sure we contribute to some short term affects but the planet has been here for a while, and will still be here after we are dust.
When I propose that this is merely a cycle, I get slapped down by the real smart people. The ones who use big words to hide the fact that their information isn't all that credible. Then these same people say things like "the next ice age won't be here for 10,000 years." WTF? That sounds like a cycle to me.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by network dude
I am increasingly confused. It's easy for me, since I am not a scientist or weather guesser, I mean forecaster. (just a joke, relax) But when I start discussing that from what evidence I have seen, it appears that the heating and cooling our Earth has been doing seems to be a cycle and not a man made thing. I am sure we contribute to some short term affects but the planet has been here for a while, and will still be here after we are dust.
When I propose that this is merely a cycle, I get slapped down by the real smart people. The ones who use big words to hide the fact that their information isn't all that credible. Then these same people say things like "the next ice age won't be here for 10,000 years." WTF? That sounds like a cycle to me.
This is essentially where you are stuck in a logical fallacy.
There are natural cycles and variations, there is not one person of any significance in the climate arena I know of who thinks otherwise. To suggest as many do here that because the current science suggests a human influence now means that past changes must also be human-caused is a profound fallacy, very lame, and an obvious strawman (dinosaurs in SUVs, rofl rofl).
There are natural cycles and there are human effects. Both can exist independently. They are also not mutually exclusive. Both can exist at the same time - which is the actual case for climate at this point in time.
Similarly, we can see a mammal's circadian cycle as natural. A mammal sleeps and wakes in a close relationship with features of the natural world. It's a cycle! I can still pump bunnies full of barbituates and mess with their cycle. I could put them in an artifical environment and take its natural cycle completely out of kilter. If I proposed that pumping a bunny full of barbs can mess with its circadian cycle, your style of logic would then want to suggest that all circadian cycles past and present are also influenced by people pumping bunnies full of barbs. Alternatively, the logic would rely on the fact that before humans circadian cycles were natural and deny the fact that I was pumping bunny rabbits full of barbs. It's a ridiculous argument, but you appear blind to its inherent fallacy.
Once you realise that both human and natural influences can exist, even when before humans existedmammals circadian cyclesclimate cycles were natural, then the question focuses on the cause ofmy sleeping bunniesthe current warming during a period of intensemy barb dosing of bunnieshuman industrialisation. And the science is pretty damn clear. There is a human influence. It includes various aspects of human activity, but the most significant is shown to be GHG emissions.
[edit on 10-11-2009 by melatonin]
Ash column generated by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines Luzon volcanic arc, on June 12, 1991. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo occurred three days later on June 15, 1991, and was one of the largest eruptions of this century. The climactic event lasted about 9 hours and erupted over a cubic mile of rock material. It injected a 20- million ton sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere to an altitude of more than 20 miles. The climactic Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century, although smaller than the estimated disturbances from the eruptions of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883. Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from man-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to the lowest ozone levels ever recorded to date in the stratosphere.
Originally posted by network dude
Just how exactly are you so sure about this? Cycles have happened in the past causing the exact situation we are in right now, but this time it's different? This is the reason I have such a hard time believing any information you present. You think that you are right and everyone else is delusional. And seem completely incapable of entertaining any new data because the guys on the tree hugger site you frequent try to discredit anyone who doesn't fall into their agenda.
sorry, I seem to have lost interest in your apparent interest in getting rabbits high. I have no idea what you are rambling about.
The biggest problem I have with GHG emmisions being a large part of your equation is the volcanic eruptions. One eruption like Mt. St. Hellens. here is a bit of data about that eruption. You can't spout the junk about GHG without factoring in things like that.
Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption
Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption
James Hansen
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
Andrew Lacis
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
Reto Ruedy
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
Makiko Sato
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
We use the GISS global climate model to make a preliminary estimate of Mount Pinatubo's climate impact. Assuming the aerosol optical depth is nearly twice as great as for the 1982 El Chichon eruption, the model forecasts a dramatic but temporary break in recent global warming trends. The simulations indicate that Pinatubo occurred too late in the year to prevent 1991 from becoming one of the warmest years in instrumental records, but intense aerosol cooling is predicted to begin late in 1991 and to maximize late in 1992. The predicted cooling is sufficiently large that by mid 1992 it should even overwhelm global warming associated with an El Nino that appears to be developing, but the El Nino could shift the time of minimum global temperature into 1993. The model predicts a return to record warm levels in the later 1990s. We estimate the effect of the predicted global cooling on such practical matters as the severity of the coming Soviet winter and the dates of cherry blossoming next spring, and discuss caveats which must accompany these preliminary simulations.
Received 3 October 1991; accepted 17 October 1991
So when you see that the earth cooled 1.3 degrees because of a single volcano, then it heated back up. And then you wonderful people claimed "Global Warming" It was actually "Global Equalization".
Are you aware of how many volcanoes erupt under the sea? The GHG are actually "gases" and what do we know about gas? if it is lighter than air it will rise. So where in all your data is that information factored in?