Naturally Occuring Global Warming

[Angus]

North pole is what, 20 MILLION years old. The shrinking is now very obvious from 1979, it has now been sailed over, and it is estimated that it will mostly be gone in some 40 years or so with the current development.
As for the "report", maybe you shouldn't  make fun of those who drill and explore ice cores, - as you said:
"To make a living by drilling ice cores and writing papers requires that you ask somebody to be your sugar daddy."
For there is the data from ancient ice, all the way back to 700.000 years ago. Maybe you should ask google and Wikipedia for the results of their work? Or would the debate be more comfortable if the data was less?

[bozon]

Originally posted by Angus
I mentioned them as an example of natural fluctuations. They didn't come close to melting the North Pole at the speeds we see today, so if it just carries on another 40 years or so, we have to go millions of years back to find anything as great.
Look at the whole pond please.

Wasn't greenland a whole lot greener when the vikings got there? Where are the vines in vinland?

Anyway, lets assume there really is a drastic global warming. Why do you think humans are responsible for that?

[Brenjen]

All I can say Angus is "Bah" All estimates & hearsay. The dramatic climate shifts have occurred throughout history & will continue to do so. Those Volcanic eruptions did zilch - zero - nothing. One degree is nothing, all these facts & still none of it has been proven.

 You said;

Anyway, your elephant frose to death, so it must have cooled quickly. Like it did in 1816, which was, by the way, the direct result of the massive volcanic explosion & eruption on Mt. Tambora in Indonesia a year before.

LOL, no absolutely NOT like it did in 1816, an animal used to living in freezing temperatures being quick frozen with spring greens in it's mouth is so far from what happened in 1816 that it's nothing alike at all. And the theory that a volcanic eruption caused the cooling in 1816 is just that; a theory & nothing more. It can't be proven. In fact the eruption of Mt. St. Helens (that you say wasn't really much) was called "a massive eruption" by volcanologists. Some scientists bring out numbers that it cooled the earth by this or that much; but just as many or more that have the same education & information say "Bull-s***"

 It's a naturally occurring cycle & nothing more.

[Flame 2 the boy]

Global warming is nothin but a bunch of apple pie hooey. The earth freezes and then it thaws out  again. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

[Holden McGroin]

I didn't make fun of ice core drillers...  It's just that there is no profit in it, and funding needs to come from somewhere.

North pole is what, 20 MILLION years old. .<....>  For there is the data from ancient ice, all the way back to 700.000 years ago.  

If it is 20 million years old, where is the 20 million year old ice core?  You would think some doctoral thesis is begging to get data that old.

[Angus]

So, is the world perhaps 6000 years old?
The deepest icecores yet are 700.000 years old or so. Since the poles have been shifting, their location was not always the same, - but heavy glaciers and polar caps do leave quite some evidence.
So, lets assume they are "only" 700.000 years old, since nothing older is caught. Melting them off in a span of 350 years is still...stunning. in 0.5 promills of the established existance, - tell me its no news please.
As fore the funding of these researches, they don't give profit, and they give discomfort, for they underline what i.e. some oil companies don't want to get into the spotlight. On that side, there is absolute short time profit vs what gives nothing but trouble to even the "sponsors". So.....rather troublesome indeed.
And Brenjen, maybe it's time to turn the tables and YOU get some data. Or maybe read what I posted:
"All I can say Angus is "Bah" All estimates & hearsay. The dramatic climate shifts have occurred throughout history & will continue to do so. Those Volcanic eruptions did zilch - zero - nothing. One degree is nothing, all these facts & still none of it has been proven"
Bah and Bah as you like. We are watching in our lifespan watching something happening that did not occure in human intelligent times. I do not know how much back you have to go to have no polar caps, but maybe google will be your friend now and you make me an essay that I can "Bah" on.
The volcanic eruptions I posted about should have been enough a read to a normal person to understand that their effect (such as the summer that never arrived) is way more than zilch, - something like the Laki event would in our times cause incredible catastrophy. Proven? yes. As well established as your existence. After all, you posted some links to it yourself.
What are you going to say next? That the night has no effect on temperature?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
So, is the world perhaps 6000 years old?

where'd you get that?  not from me...

The deepest icecores yet are 700.000 years old or so. Since the poles have been shifting, their location was not always the same, - but heavy glaciers and polar caps do leave quite some evidence.

So your 20 million number was pdooya?

So, lets assume they are "only" 700.000 years old, since nothing older is caught. Melting them off in a span of 350 years is still...stunning.

You sure?

link For example, Morrill explained, there was a 14 degree Fahrenheit rise at the end of a period called the Younger Dryas -- a climate period that occurred nearly 12,000 years ago, just after the last ice age ended. While scientists are worried about the potential impact of a 2 degree or 3 degree F. global increase over the next century, the 14 degree rise occurred "in a period of decades," she said. "Future climate change probably won't be gradual."

[Brenjen]

And Brenjen, maybe it's time to turn the tables and YOU get some data. Or maybe read what I posted:"All I can say Angus is "Bah" All estimates & hearsay. The dramatic climate shifts have occurred throughout history & will continue to do so. Those Volcanic eruptions did zilch - zero - nothing. One degree is nothing, all these facts & still none of it has been proven"
Bah and Bah as you like. We are watching in our lifespan watching something happening that did not occure in human intelligent times. I do not know how much back you have to go to have no polar caps, but maybe google will be your friend now and you make me an essay that I can "Bah" on.
The volcanic eruptions I posted about should have been enough a read to a normal person to understand that their effect (such as the summer that never arrived) is way more than zilch, - something like the Laki event would in our times cause incredible catastrophy. Proven? yes. As well established as your existence. After all, you posted some links to it yourself.
What are you going to say next? That the night has no effect on temperature?

 I read what you said & none of what you quoted as fact has been proven, all theories. The volcanic eruption you quoted as the cause of the 1816 cold snap is a theory, the scientists who put forth that theory even call it a theory lol. As well established as my existence? "bah" You sort of trail off into babble there at the end so I won't comment on the derogatory comments meant to extricate an angry response from me.  

 The proof is out there, read it yourself. This is a naturally occurring shift, it's happened before & it'll happen again. Just because your seeing part of it happen doesn't mean it's a first brother Angus.

[Angus]

There is also the theory of Gravity.
While it works, it is yet not explained.
Now Brenjen, give me the better explanation of that coolness in 1816 (similar occurance after Krakatau as far as I remember). Then excercise your mind on the radius of fallout (thickness and distance) and tell me it had no effect. Funny that those scientists ever brought up terms like "global dimming" and the cooling effects therefrom.  Funny that the shade of the night cools the air. And while at it, please discard the effects of the Laki eruption, and the funny N-Hemisphere cooling occuring swiftly after and lasting for some years. The fog, the sulphur...nothing, yes?

In your world, if you shade your room from the sun, it probably doesn't cool.
And if you open the curtains, it doesn't warm?
And if you replace the window glass with a mirror, then what?
And if you buy a special "K" glass for your window, then what?

All theories of course
Except the truth of global warming, from your source, - or theory:
"This is a naturally occurring shift". In your own words. So I know your park.
A natural occuring shift, thereby no human impact. A little off the cycle perhaps?  Or is it a 20 million years swing?
Anyway, in my readings, this all becomes more interesting. From my friend W:
"[edit] Ice shelf disruption
In the last several decades, glaciologists have observed consistent decreases in ice shelf extent through melt, calving, and complete disintegration of some shelves.

The Ellesmere ice shelf reduced by 90 percent in the twentieth century, leaving the separate Alfred Ernest, Ayles, Milne, Ward Hunt, and Markham Ice Shelves. A 1986 survey of Canadian ice shelves found that 48 square km (3.3 cubic kilometers) of ice calved from the Milne and Ayles ice shelves between 1959 and 1974.[1] The Ayles Ice Shelf calved entirely on August 13, 2005. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest remaining section of thick (>10 m) landfast sea ice along the northern coastline of Ellesmere Island, lost 600 square km of ice in a massive calving in 1961-1962.[2] It further decreased by 27% in thickness (13 m) between 1967 and 1999.[3] In summer 2002, the Ward Ice Shelf experienced another major breakup. [4]

Two sections of Antarctica's Larsen Ice Shelf broke apart into hundreds of unusually small fragments (100's of meters wide or less) in 1995 and 2002.

The breakup events are linked the dramatic polar warming trends that are part of global warming. The leading ideas involve enhanced ice fracturing due to surface meltwater and enhanced bottom melting due to warmer ocean water circulating under the floating ice."

This is this century from the polar areas. Notice the words "dramatic polar warming".
And the counter...the dimming, from W:
"Global dimming
Main article: Global dimming
Scientists have stated with 66-90% confidence that the effects of volcanic and human-caused aerosols have offset some of global warming, and that greenhouse gases would have resulted in more warming than observed if not for this effect.[1]"
I trust W better than Brenjen. W also has that nice one:




Here is more from W:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Pic:



Tough to call it a theory when the measures come that close, as well as the old photos and the tales of your great-grandfather....

So, what proof is there for me? Maybe you can get a grant for proving the 2 items for me:
1: Globe is not warming
2: If it is, it's such a normal cycle that any human factor is eliminated.

[bozon]

Angus,
to you points:
1. There is very little argument in the scientific community that the world is getting warmer in recent history. However, it has been warmer before.

2. Why, if there is a change, do you automatically assume that human activity is responsible for that and ask for it to be disproved?

The only thing that links human activity to global warming (as far as I know) are the computer models. Leaving aside the problematics of modeling the heating/cooling physics, human influence is not modeled directly into them. In order to tulips human activity influence, they assume the effects on environment variables such as the CO2 levels. That's their weakest part of the anthropogenic global warming theory and the source to all the "we must cut back on CO2 emission" issue.

The simple fact is that they don't CALCULATE what the CO2 levels will be in 100 years. It is usually an input variable or an extremely simplified phenomenological model. The scientists that attack these models claim that CO2 levels are mostly an effect of the temperature and not the cause of it. Most of the world CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Like any chemical reaction balance, the ratio between the dissolved phase and the gas phase is a function of temperature. By their claims, most of the CO2 you emit to the atmosphere will dissolve into the oceans on a time scale of 10 years. Since the amount of CO2 you will emit in the next 100 years, even according the the worst estimates, will be a negligible fraction of the total dissolved oceanic CO2, you are left without any significant human influence on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Next we need to prove that it is not cell-phones and genetic-engineered food that cause it. Scientists also have not disproved any relation to abortions.

[lazs2]

red bottom..  are you saying that the ozone layer and co2 caused man made warming are the same?   that in 1991 all these scientists were on the co2 kick?   How many "documentaries" were made?

angus... I am not getting paid either... the only people getting paid are the scientists who study the thing with a slant toward man made global warming.

lazs

[Brenjen]

Angus your post was too long to quote but I'll say this; gravity was a theory but has been proven. You don't have to prove how gravity works to prove it does indeed work. What we are discussing here is something that, not only have scientists not proven how it works, but even if it has a significant effect.

 There is no doubt that human habitation on this planet effect it's atmosphere & there is also no doubt that natural occurrences do too such as volcanic eruptions. I feel you, like the doom sayers in the global warming community, are painting with a very wide brush. No one has proven there is a significant effect, I can't stress that enough.

 The people like myself who believe that; Yes indeed the earth is warming, it's not strictly because of human habits or volcano's or any other single cause....not even cow farts as some fringe "scientists" have claimed. It's natural process, we may be accelerating the process with pollution & farming (basically just overpopulation) etc. but it would happen regardless even if humans were not present. How much we are accelerating this process, if any is the big question mark.

 I say again, scientists have proven that the earth warms & cools in cycles. If it wasn't then there would still be glaciers covering North America....& those have been gone long before mankind began to pollute. Don't get so worked up about it; it causes you to come across as sarcastic & makes me less inclined to take you seriously. All the fringe global warming nut cases get worked up like that instead of calmly discussing what can be proven, what's probable & what isn't. My opinion (yes OPINION) is that the gloom & doom is all hooey. Look at pictures of the "dustbowl" in the 30's...it looked like the Gobi desert, then look at the same area today. Changes like that happen, always have, always will.


 No hard feelings, we just have differing opinions.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus


So, what proof is there for me? Maybe you can get a grant for proving the 2 items for me:
1: Globe is not warming
2: If it is, it's such a normal cycle that any human factor is eliminated.

That`s the point. You would play Billy Hell getting a grant or even being recognized or published any findings, intent to study or anything that might possibly shed some light on the subject that would in any way be contradictory to the fairy tale.
Those that have suggested alternative theories or even their possibilities have been quickly buried.
There is too much money invested to let this happen if it can be avoid at all costs.
As an added little bonus for the mining of global warming profiteers, the media was a natural addition for free. Why? Sensationalism sales. Big time.
The hilarious thing is that the same media will be "breaking the news" when the wind swings the other way.
Wake up and smell the coffee.

[jtoups]

ur so silly.  Global warming does not instantly cause deserts across the world.  It changes weather conditions.  Warm areas might become cold.  Dry areas might become wet.  It changes the climate of the world, and not always for the warmer.  In fact, an ice age is one of the hypothesized effects of global warming

Global warming is happening, and is accepted by 95% of scientists.  now the question is, what's causing it?

If you ask me, I say lets limit polution.  Polution is bad, every1 knows that, so lets limit it.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by jtoups
ur so silly.  
 

Global warming is happening, and is accepted by 95% of scientists.  now the question is, what's causing it?

Which has no answer. The 95% is a long stretch also.

Polution is bad, every1 knows that, so lets limit it.

Well that settles it. Problem solved.

Where do they come from? roflmao