Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Frozen Britain - NASA Satellite image Jan. 7


acidhead

Recommended Posts

It doesn't say we're at the top of one of the cycles. It says we've drastically surpassed any normal max recorded in any previous cycle

climate_chart_600.jpg

You're right that there have been cycles, as you can see on this. Look at the extreme right. Does that look like part of the normal cycle?

let me put aside the fact that the graph you put up clearly shows temperature increasing before CO2 - the opposite of what AGW claims (unless my eyes decieve me), and ask you to explain to me how we can have any real knowledge of any sort of cycle based on only 3 past temperature increases? it is ludicrous. the earth has been around for an estimated 4.5 billion years or so. let's say we give a little room and allow 200,000 years for 1 cycle (which is significantly more than the graph shows), that would mean there have been around 22000 previous cycles that we have no knowledge of. scientists look at 3 cycles out of tens of thousands and claim to see some sort of trend?!? that is simply idiotic.

edit - it's a bit like predicting a trend in climate over the next ten years based on 2 days weather. (not the best analogy i'm afraid but i think it voices my point well enough)

Edited by expandmymind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mattshark

    36

  • IamsSon

    19

  • Moon Monkey

    12

  • danielost

    12

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

It doesn't say we're at the top of one of the cycles. It says we've drastically surpassed any normal max recorded in any previous cycle

climate_chart_600.jpg

You're right that there have been cycles, as you can see on this. Look at the extreme right. Does that look like part of the normal cycle?

Here's another graph of the data with the extreme right stretched out, so that you get a horizontal axis that shows decades instead of millenia. (the graphs start at different years so the lower one show 4 former cycles instead of three)

cf- http://igutek.scripts.mit.edu/terrascope/?page=why350 (measurements taken from Vostok Ice Core by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.)

why5.jpg

1) The ice core data starts at around 150 YBP yet these graphs show CO2 to present. Therefore it mixes inferred ice-core CO2 with recent direct measurements, two different things.

2) There have been many, many studies published over the last 200 years where direct measurements of CO2 have shown higher ppm than the currently used 370-ish at times when mans CO2 emmissions were a tiny fraction of current levels.

3) There have been times in the earths history where the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was in the 1000's ppm. Extrapolate the IPCC models and you find that the predicted global temperatures would make have meant life was impossible.

4) During the period shown in the graph there have been many occasions when the temperature was much warmer than today however according to this graph CO2 levels were lower.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.