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 -

Global warming a lie?


StarChild 83

Global warming true or false?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Yes

    • No
    • Never heard of the argument against it.


Recommended Posts

I agree that amounts of energy recived is different. You said it all. Orbit change and distance between earth and sun. And so on. We agree.

You contradict yourself, you say that we are heading for an Ice Age however we are getting warmer. Orbital cycles have nothing to do with the current warming trend, particularly as the time taken to produce a change is much longer.

Also that graph you produced indicates a very rapid warming for the last part of the century/this century. You look how this correlates with the MWP and LIA fluctuations and you'll see that not only is the current warming greater, it also appears to be much more rapid than before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 730
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Doug1029

    151

  • Little Fish

    108

  • oly

    67

  • lp21why

    42

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Also if distance between earth and sun is getting higher isnt logic that earth is cooling down?

Can you show me where it says they are, and by what magnitude.

I think that the MWP was probably caused by land use change within South America and Europe and this represented a large move away from forestry to arable farming. I also think that the LIA was at least partly caused by the opposite effect when the various plagues of the late medieval period led to a huge re-emergance of forestry throughout Europe. These would have caused effects on albedo and on atmospheric CO2. The same process was also taking place later when the agricultural civilizations of the South America were all but wiped out by introduced disease.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You contradict yourself, you say that we are heading for an Ice Age however we are getting warmer. Orbital cycles have nothing to do with the current warming trend, particularly as the time taken to produce a change is much longer.

Also that graph you produced indicates a very rapid warming for the last part of the century/this century. You look how this correlates with the MWP and LIA fluctuations and you'll see that not only is the current warming greater, it also appears to be much more rapid than before.

It depends on what time period you look. How do you know that distance between sun and earth have nothing to do with it?

Explain me. Isnt logic that temperature is getting smaller if your distance from heat is getting higher?

More rapid from this time period. What you trying to tell that earth never been so heated as today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you show me where it says they are, and by what magnitude.

I read few articles where it say that earth - sun distance is getting higher.

I will try to search it later-just for you.

edit: wrong word.

Edited by the L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what time period you look. How do you know that distance between sun and earth have nothing to do with it?

Explain me. Isnt logic that temperature is getting smaller if your distance from heat is getting higher?

More rapid from this time period. What you trying to tell that earth never been so heated as today?

What we are trying to establish is what is your source for asserting that distance is the driving mechanism for the current warming. Where is your data.

I have said that the Milankovich cycles which deal with just this issue - predict a stable period for the next 10K yrs minimum. What have you got to contradict this.

Edit: I will help you out;

"Having such a precise yardstick allowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg to calculate, in 2004, that the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It's not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that's 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward. But what?"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html

As we have been saying - 15cm a year should be causing cooling and not warming. Secondly 15cm a year will produce significant effects in a few thousand years.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what time period you look. How do you know that distance between sun and earth have nothing to do with it?

Explain me. Isnt logic that temperature is getting smaller if your distance from heat is getting higher?

More rapid from this time period. What you trying to tell that earth never been so heated as today?

As Br Cornelius stated, Milankovitch (the orbital cycles) occur on 24k, 41k and 100k year cycles. Looking at the history over the Quaternary period (2.6 million years) and the periodicity of glacials and interglacials we see that it fits in nicely.

Interglacials last for a period of 20-30k years, the current one began 11.5k years ago - so we are not looking at an ice age in the near future.

The Earth has been as hot as at present and in cases even hotter, however the current warming trend is uncharacteristic; with most evidence pointing towards a human cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...with most evidence pointing towards a human cause.

What is you opinion how global warming affect on politics?

What do you think why USA didnt sign Kyoto agreements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Earth has been as hot as at present and in cases even hotter, however the current warming trend is uncharacteristic;

Is little ice age uncharacteristic?

What have you got to contradict this.

Little ice gae? :w00t: Dont know. Just guessing since Im not familiar with cycles you two talking about. I will read it ofcourse. Just asking questions. Nothing wrong being wrong.

Edited by the L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is little ice age uncharacteristic?

Ice ages are, as stated, predicted by the Milankovich cycles - nothing predicted on the horizon any time soon, so this whole point is a complete red herring to the debate.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is you opinion how global warming affect on politics?

What do you think why USA didnt sign Kyoto agreements?

This is not an issue about politics and never has been. There is a huge corpus of facts accumulated over the last 40yrs or so which points towards AGW. Politicians are not scientists and their opinions and responses to AGW have absolutely no baring on the science. The only think you can be hinting at is that the whole AGW debate is driven by politicians in a global conspiracy - as to that idea :P

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well true or not, what we believe and what we don't believe, I personally think it's the human race going down the drain, just without the planet. I'm a bit of a strong believer in what George Carlin has to say about these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not an issue about politics and never has been. There is a huge corpus of facts accumulated over the last 40yrs or so which points towards AGW. Politicians are not scientists and their opinions and responses to AGW have absolutely no baring on the science. The only think you can be hinting at is that the whole AGW debate is driven by politicians in a global conspiracy - as to that idea :P

Br Cornelius

Cmon Cornelius. I just start to like you. How is NOT that issue about politics?

Why USA didnt sign it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cmon Cornelius. I just start to like you. How is NOT that issue about politics?

Why USA didnt sign it?

What politicians do or don't do will not change the fact of AGW - this is why their opinions are totally irrelevant to the debate about the reality of AGW. Where their opinions will have an effect is the outcome of AGW. Having an opinion will not change the reality here.

Because they are a fossil fuel dominated global leader, and to accept AGW undermines their total legitimacy as a dominant power. It hurts to admit your wrong - so you live in denial and carry on as usual, regardless of the consequences. Fundamentally the USA is experiencing a crisis of meaning - and they haven't got any alternative ideas.

That is why they refused to sign the Kyoto protocol.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is little ice age uncharacteristic?

Little ice gae? :w00t: Dont know. Just guessing since Im not familiar with cycles you two talking about. I will read it ofcourse. Just asking questions. Nothing wrong being wrong.

Some have suggested that the MWP and LIA are part of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, that are climate fluctuations on a 1500 year cycle and have been evidenced throughout the past glacial cycle. As the MWP and LIA are around 750 - 800 years apart they may be the warm and cold points within this cycle - although this is just conjecture on my part. It would suggest that both events are well within defined climatic parameters.

AGW should not be a political issue IMO, most politicians are not familiar enough with the basic science to make an informed decision - that goes for those on both sides of the 'debate'. They need to consult with scientists to make policies, and not with various lobbyists that have their own agenda. Most scientists have no stake in AGW either way, and don't need to falsify data in order to promote an ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting fact about the MWP, and the colonization of Greenland by the Danes, was that it only became possible to colonize because of improved ocean going sailing technology that the Viking developed. The LIA came along and pushed a marginal colony over the edge. The point is that the colony was never really viable for the Vikings and it was a disaster waiting to happen. What looks like a warm snap was not particularly exceptional - it was the cold snap which was significant and noteworthy.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting warmer in small period of time watched. If you compared to other times in history we are cooling down.

Also I mentioned that distance between earth and sun is getting bigger to all you conclude that it is logic that we are cooling down.

Maybe if we as human didnt warmed earth maybe we would be frozen. )

Well Im not expert. But as I see it earth is moving from sun= cooling, human=warming...so we are okay for now.

Also look at this pic and tell me what does it tell you...

2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

It suggests that since we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere on an industrial scale we have managed to find a new way to destroy our planet and damage our ecology. It is not a good thing and is serious issue, especially for polar wildlife. But additional desertification and loss of sub polar habitat is a severe issue as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What politicians do or don't do will not change the fact of AGW - this is why their opinions are totally irrelevant to the debate about the reality of AGW. Where their opinions will have an effect is the outcome of AGW. Having an opinion will not change the reality here.

Because they are a fossil fuel dominated global leader, and to accept AGW undermines their total legitimacy as a dominant power. It hurts to admit your wrong - so you live in denial and carry on as usual, regardless of the consequences. Fundamentally the USA is experiencing a crisis of meaning - and they haven't got any alternative ideas.

That is why they refused to sign the Kyoto protocol.

Br Cornelius

Also, Bush was a thicko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some have suggested that the MWP and LIA are part of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, that are climate fluctuations on a 1500 year cycle and have been evidenced throughout the past glacial cycle. As the MWP and LIA are around 750 - 800 years apart they may be the warm and cold points within this cycle - although this is just conjecture on my part. It would suggest that both events are well within defined climatic parameters.

AGW should not be a political issue IMO, most politicians are not familiar enough with the basic science to make an informed decision - that goes for those on both sides of the 'debate'. They need to consult with scientists to make policies, and not with various lobbyists that have their own agenda. Most scientists have no stake in AGW either way, and don't need to falsify data in order to promote an ideology.

The Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum, a period when there were almost no sunspots. Now we see the next sunspot cycle late in arriving and a cooler-than-expected few years in our climate records. It looks as if the solar cycle is involved.

What seems to be happening is that global warming is simply being added onto natural cycles.

Doug

P.S.:

Some interesting coincidences:

1. Old growth shortleaf pines from Missouri show a 16-year growth period; the sun takes 16.5 years to orbit the solar system's center of mass.

2. A 3.5 and a 7-year cycle have been noted in tree rings in both Missouri and Arkansas; the Chandler Cycles in the earth's wobble are 3.5 and 7 years.

3. Fluctuations in the North Atlantic Oscillation have been tracked in tree rings going back 12,000 years.

4. Blue storms are more-frequent during La Nina. Tree rings record the passage of blue storms; although, the records here are still pretty sketchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum, a period when there were almost no sunspots. Now we see the next sunspot cycle late in arriving and a cooler-than-expected few years in our climate records. It looks as if the solar cycle is involved.

What seems to be happening is that global warming is simply being added onto natural cycles.

Doug

P.S.:

Some interesting coincidences:

1. Old growth shortleaf pines from Missouri show a 16-year growth period; the sun takes 16.5 years to orbit the solar system's center of mass.

2. A 3.5 and a 7-year cycle have been noted in tree rings in both Missouri and Arkansas; the Chandler Cycles in the earth's wobble are 3.5 and 7 years.

3. Fluctuations in the North Atlantic Oscillation have been tracked in tree rings going back 12,000 years.

4. Blue storms are more-frequent during La Nina. Tree rings record the passage of blue storms; although, the records here are still pretty sketchy.

I'm not convinced that the MWP and LIA are representative of a D-O event, particularly due to a lack of a Heinrich Event. As I maintained, it was just conjecture.

I read a paper not too long ago (le Trouet et al. I think) that reconstructed ENSO and NAO during these two periods using dendrochronology, and there was a correlation between a strong La Nina and positive NAO during the MWP - possibly creating a feedback that produced the warming i.e. not something that is currently occurring.

I was unaware how well tree rings recorded solar variability however, thanks for sharing the information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that the MWP and LIA are representative of a D-O event, particularly due to a lack of a Heinrich Event.

I'm not saying it was - just that solar cycles seem to be involved in climate.

I read a paper not too long ago (le Trouet et al. I think) that reconstructed ENSO and NAO during these two periods using dendrochronology, and there was a correlation between a strong La Nina and positive NAO during the MWP - possibly creating a feedback that produced the warming i.e. not something that is currently occurring.

I was unaware how well tree rings recorded solar variability however, thanks for sharing the information.

I'm working closer to the ground - trying to predict the probability blue storms. Because these storms are infrequent (Only nine during the modern period for Arkansas/Oklahoma and eleven for Missouri, it would take about 300 years of records to tell if the frequency is changing - hence, the interest in dendrochronology. There are three chronologies for shortleaf pine that go back that far and only about seven or eight known stands that are that old, so the record is a little scant. There are inumerable oak chronologies that go back that far, but is is not real sensitive to blue storms. There's always a catch.

BTW: In North America, dendrochronologists are up against a phenomenon called "The Wall." In the late 17th century there was a 40-year severe drought - bad enough to kill trees. This ended with a severe frost that defoliated trees during the growing season, killing more. There is a real shortage of trees that date from before this event.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effects like that happen over thousands of years, not 150yrs. They are well described in the Milankovich cycles and they predict a stable climate for the next 30Kyrs.

What we are experiencing has absolutely northing to do with orbital effects.

Br Cornelius

As I recall, there are three Milankovich Cycles, ranging between 10,000 and 40,000 years long. We are now near the warmest parts of the periods of all three, so temperatures would be expected to be higher than usual. There are also innumerable shorter cycles - we haven't even identified all of them, yet. What we mean by "global warming" is something above and beyond the natural cycles. In terms of temperature, that something appears to be an exponential increase in global mean temperature starting about 1750.

There are instrumental records for Upsala, Sweden that are continuous back to 1722. Stockholm has a continuous record from 1756 to present. Milan, Italy - 1763 to present. Central England - 1772 to present. Padova, Italy - 1774 to present. Cadiz, Spain - 1817 to present. Central Belgium - 1833 to present. In the U.S. there are some bits and pieces from just after the Revolution, including Thomas Jefferson's diary. The Army started keeping records in 1828, so we have several records going back to then. The "modern" record in most places begins in the late 1880s or 1890s and continues by fits and starts to the present.

On another subject: I talked to a climatologist about my data. Predictably, he said I should approach the problem like a climatologist, rather than a dendrochronologist. A dendrochronologist takes the closest weather station to his data set, fills missing data with regression processes using nearby weather stations and then runs his model(s). A climatologist uses an average of several nearby stations. I have the added problem of having 26 sites, meaning 26 separate data sets to be combined. Though there is not a great deal of relief in Arkansas, there seems to be enough to mess up my temperature data, which means I need to include elevation in my climate model. Back to the drawing board. Tomorrow I'm going on a collecting trip to Ohio. Be back in a week - then back to the computer.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming one of the most discussed topics on the forum, a discussion which will never end thanks to the fact no answer exists. enjoy your life while you can, and worry about it when your dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming one of the most discussed topics on the forum, a discussion which will never end thanks to the fact no answer exists. enjoy your life while you can, and worry about it when your dead.

Actually a plethora of information exists towards one answer, i.e. it is happening. The problem is the disinformation and/or individuals with a loud voice misinterpreting data. Of course there are genuine scientists who have an arguement against AGW based on science, and these are the ones we need to be taking into account in order to improve the science and data we already have. However these are thin on the ground, and don't shout anywhere as loud as the supposed skeptics.

There is a reason over 90% of scientists support AGW.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming one of the most discussed topics on the forum, a discussion which will never end thanks to the fact no answer exists. enjoy your life while you can, and worry about it when your dead.

That is only because a bunch of people would rather believe a political site over actual scientific evidence and shockingly think that political claims are as scientifically relevant and that their opinion on the matter is as valid as that of those who actually study the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Earth is not going through a global warming crisis, but rather a cycle that it has been going through ever since it was created.

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.