Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#52546 07/10/14 10:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
global warming enthusiast will be happy to know
that the U.S. portion of global warming will be
slightly delayed for a few years as the fluctuations
of the coming ice age make itself known globally.

not to worry however , after a few years have passed
global warming will begin to pick up its pace once again
for an even shorter period than the last warming period that extended
from the 1970's until recently which was also a
fluctuation of the coming ice age.

------------------************************--------------------
notice: as far as I know of...
the above statement has not been approved by the IPCC.
------------------************************--------------------



Quote:
Well buckle up, America. We’re getting another dose of polar air next week, and just in time for what is normally the hottest week of the year.

While next week’s mid-summer cold snap won’t send you rushing for the nearest space heater, its origins are similar to the cold snaps that defined the brutal winter just past.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/...n_east_and.html

we cant stop it , but we can prepare for it.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Paul, your 2nd graph looks "altered," compared with the commonly available graphs of the same data, istm. Where did your copy come from?
===

But regardless (since it has no relevance to the OP), this increased variability (in weather)
...agrees with AGW predictions; especially as a consequence of the increased warming of polar regions.
That extra warming lessens the temperature differential, so....

That weakens the Polar Jet Stream, which if it were strong enough, would normally keep the polar vortex more centered at the pole.
Now, with a weaker Polar Jet Stream, the 'vortex' can wander more.

This also allows even more warm air to infiltrate into the (normally protected by the Jet Stream) polar regions. I'd bet that if you look at global weather, you'll find some unusually warm temps in the Arctic regions, concurrently with your (local) 'July cold snap.'

This video explains how that works, but it is in Celsius; so when they talk about "differences" or "increases" in degrees, you need to double (roughly) the changes ...to get Fahrenheit degrees change. Also: 100mm/hr = 3.94 inches/hr...


Quote:
"How is it that a slightly warmer atmosphere can create weather that swings from one extreme to the next?"

"From Lazy Jet Streams to Baking Soils,
in this report we explain the mechanism behind some of the most catastrophic events of the decade."

"Understanding exactly how a warmer world drives weather wild is crucial to predicting just how bumpy a ride we are in for."

"So how is it that it can be getting hotter, drier, and wetter at the same time?"

...plus one more:

"And with the speed that emissions still enter the atmosphere, we're right on track for an unrecognizable future."

~ wink

p.s. At minute 12:00 is where the 'Jet Stream' explanation starts (really 13:00-14:00), and it follows through between minutes 15 to 16 ...plus.


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
It looks like extreme weather events are here to stay. In time we may even have a new American desert in the central US. The desert southwest is suffering a prolonged drought. The Midwest may move into a desert eventually. The Missouri river has already flooded near here once this year due to heavy rains in the northern tier of states that feed its tributaries. The amount of water exceeded the capacity of the dams on the Missouri to buffer the flow, so some local farmland got irrigated that wasn't supposed to be irrigated. I hope they had flood insurance. It's hard to see your friends and neighbors lose their livelihood at the mercy of Mother Nature. At least it is not as bad as the floods of 2011 that wiped out whole towns and endangered 2 nuclear power plants. I expect we'll learn to cope with it eventually.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
lets not look at a graph then sam, here is a side by side
comparison of the artic sea ice from

july 1 1979 and july 1 2014

now if we are in a global warming period then why is there
more white snow cover that would reflect the suns light back into space in the year 2014?

and why has the snow cover increased around Greenland and further south into Canada and into Russia.

the video you posted states that the snow cover or the white stuff is decreasing.

I don't see that happening , I see the snow cover or the white stuff increasing.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=01&sy=2014


now if that bit of fact sparked your interest then wait till
you see whats next.

January 1 1979 and January 1 2014

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=01&sy=2014

seeing is usually believing.

I really do think that this site should also have a
side by side comparison of the Antarctic as well , that
could be very revealing when global cooling is concerned
as the ice age progresses.

as it stands you would need to visit the site each
day and download the image for the day and build a comparison
yourself.

and yes that has worked well.


Quote:
"And with the speed that emissions still enter the atmosphere, we're right on track for an unrecognizable future."


what we do to the atmosphere cannot stop or slow the
coming ice age , we should not focus on what is causing the
climate changes , we should focus on preparing for the coming
ice age.











3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Paul, your 1979 – 2014 comparison shows distinctly warmer conditions in 2014. True there is the patch you mention where there is more snow cover; but to use these pictures, even to imply a global decrease in temperature is below your usual standard of argument.

I tend to avoid “Global Warming” arguments, precisely because I suspect both sides of skewing the evidence.

When I first met the “Global Warming” arguments, my interest in geology made me think it was probably sensationalist hype. Looking at geological history, I saw a succession of glaciations and inter-glacial periods. I could see no reason to think that the present was anything other than an inter-glacial period, that we could expect temperature fluctuations and eventually another glaciation.

However, there are a few things we should keep in mind. Global Warming is a singularly unfortunate term. It tends to give the impression that what we are considering is a steady progression towards a warmer, possibly drier, climate everywhere, all at once. A better term is Global Climate Change, which allows for a patchwork of changing conditions which may, or may not, be heading towards generally warmer conditions in the future. To make any sort of decision on this last point requires a careful and unbiased look at all the evidence.

One of the things in dispute is whether or not human activity is influencing the weather. Consider the effect that stromatolites and subsequent oxygen producing organisms had on the atmosphere. The rise of oxygen levels brought about a major extinction of life on Earth. The effects of this change are still with us, but we are removing large quantities of the tree cover that helps to clear up CO2 and refresh O2; and we are pumping vast amounts of “greenhouse” gasses into the atmosphere. What makes us think that we are less efficient than stromatolites at altering the composition of the atmosphere?

I think that, to some extent, both sides are right. We are altering the atmosphere, we are moving towards an increasing “greenhouse effect”, it may have disastrous consequences in terms of sea level changes, and agricultural problems; but in terms of the geological perspective, who or what ever may not survive, the planet will.

“Save the Planet” means, in its broadest sense, save the current occupants – animal and vegetable, and in its narrowest sense, save the human race.

In the long run, Earth will survive and continue with its cycles of warm and cold, whatever we do. The important thing, in my view, is that we try to minimise the harm and suffering we cause while we are here.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul, your 1979 – 2014 comparison shows distinctly warmer conditions in 2014. True there is the patch you mention where there is more snow cover; but to use these pictures, even to imply a global decrease in temperature is below your usual standard of argument.


Im guessing that you didnt look at the
January 1 1979 and January 1 2014 comparisons.

as the top link was to a set of images made from satellite
data taken in the summer , there is a great
amount of difference between the summer and the winter
comparisons between the two years.




its obvious to me that you did not see the bottom link to
the winter data.

to me even the july 1 1979 and july 1 2014 data shows
a large amount of cooling as it shows a great increase
in the snow cover area as in thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of square miles.





Forbes has a article about the hype you spoke of
as profiteers of global warming knowingly propped
up global warming as a means of gain.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...rth-is-cooling/

Quote:
Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Look at the "whole picture", Paul.

True, there is more extensive snow cover in 2014, but that proves nothing other than that there was heavy snow that year. Even here in UK we have isolated years in which we have a lot more snow than usual. Often, these do not co-inside with years of lowest temperatures.

Balance against the extra snow the fact that the areas of lowest temperature are smaller in 2014. Either side could find supportive evidence.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
the fact that the areas of lowest temperature are smaller in 2014


could you post a link to that data?


it would be nice to have a whole picture to look at.

a picture that would reveal how the temperatures throughout the
globe have fluctuated over a period of time.

the problem with the construction of that picture is that
there are groups of people who have an incentive to lay out
the picture the way that their group wants the picture to appear.

there is free data available but not for commercial use.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/

even though the acquisition of the data has already been
paid for by the citizens of the U.S. the citizens can only
access the data through the web site or a application that
might have been compromised by a group of people that
may have an incentive to sway the data in a manner that
would further advance their cause.

if the data was freely available for use to programmers
that build applications then this would give an incentive
to programmers to develop an application that would not
cherry pick the data to be displayed and it would remove
the monopoly that the incentive driven groups have on the
display of the data.

I haven't looked at the applications on the web site yet
and you may not have access.

but I can tell you that I personally would not place any
bets on the data that is used in the applications representing
a true account of the overall climate.

as the incentives would cause the data to be cherry picked.

all that I can do is look at the thousands of record low
temperatures in the summer time.

and all of the thousands of record low temperatures in the winter time.

and the satellite imagery that tells its own story from day
to day.

let me give a few examples of global incentives.

#1 ... cap and trade.

#2 ... real estate.

#3 ... United Nations agenda

etc...etc...etc...

I just looked at a few of the web apps...

what a waste of taxpayer money , the apps they have are
anything but useful unless you only want to try and use it
for some purpose , just to try and use it for some purpose.

I guess that's the way they want it , because that's what
they have.

that really makes me sick , not angry because I understand
that its the government , but they have all of that data
from all over the world , just think about all the instruments
and all the labor and time involved to get the vast amount
of data and then to have this as the final product...
it really is the year 2014 isn't it , but from the looks of the web site
and the usability of the web site it looks as
if the apps were built using windows 3.1 and visual basic 2.0

its like having a bank vault that is continuously
filling itself with money , but you don't have any way
to get into the vault to spend any of the money.

Bill S , you wouldn't happen to have a whole picture I could
look at would you?







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Try the picture presented by the graph at:

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent%20land%20surface%20temperature

Originally Posted By: Paul
the problem with the construction of that picture is that
there are groups of people who have an incentive to lay out
the picture the way that their group wants the picture to appear.


Originally Posted By: Bill S
I tend to avoid “Global Warming” arguments, precisely because I suspect both sides of skewing the evidence.


Are we so far apart?

I still think we are in an interglacial period, but I don't see that as an absolute argument against human activity being able to influence climate in the relatively short term.

I'm told there are "fundamentalist" groups who argue that we cannot influence the climate, because it will always be what God wants it to be, but I'm a little reluctant to accept that reasoning in its entirety.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
those are some nice pictures , I especially like the
one below.



http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

click on the above link , save the image to your hard drive , then open it with ms paint.

then zoom in on the red box to the right.

that is where we are right now on the graph , below the 0.0 mark !


Quote:
Are we so far apart?

I still think we are in an interglacial period, but I don't see that as an absolute argument against human activity being able to influence climate in the relatively short term.

I'm told there are "fundamentalist" groups who argue that we cannot influence the climate, because it will always be what God wants it to be, but I'm a little reluctant to accept that reasoning in its entirety.


we definitely are not far apart , were just looking at
different scales of data.

I try to look at the evidence on a larger scale and that
larger scale is what turned my opinion from GW and AGW
into IA only with fluctuations of course.

we are in an ice age , and trying our best to maintain the warm
weather , but its just not possible...

all the money that is being spent on talking about it will
accomplish nothing except a lack of preparedness.

the governments are not lacking they are busy building the
underground survival facilities all across the globe.

were not invited to attend , but were paying for them.

its time for us to start our own preparations.

I can easily say in reply to the part about God , that
God gave us all a brain to think with , and its up to us
to fill the brain with our choice of data.

we can no longer just assume that all data is correct and
that is where the brains capability of logic comes into play.


I suspect that orac will see the above as an opportunity to
impress us with his favorite rant about some goat god that he
must believe exist.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Try the picture presented by the graph at:

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent%20land%20surface%20temperature

I still think we are in an interglacial period, but I don't see that as an absolute argument against human activity being able to influence climate in the relatively short term.


Bill, that is a huge site! Lots of graphs, but I didn't see this type (from a Greenland ice core) that gives more resolution.
www.eoearth.org

These ice core graphs are showing the change or anomoly relative to the "present day" temperature, such as the -55.5 C (degrees below zero) that was recorded with Paul's Vostok graph. But it's all relative; so they all still indicate climate changes, more or less....

What I find most interesting, is the long and relatively flat period ...during which civilization arose. It seems relatively flat and level compared with almost any other similarly long period from either the 100kyr graph [with the much better resolution or magnification of Paul's 'box'] ...or the 400kyr graph with the exaggerated 'y-scale' and a 'zero' that is different from today (if I am to believe what I read here earlier).
===

History (of civilization) is a long story filled with tales of how climate changes have helped make or break various regional societies, istm.

But looking at these graphs, doesn't it seem that climate is usually much wilder than anything we have experienced over the past few thousand years or so? You can imagine how those peaks of Paul's (the previous interglacials) would look on the scale of this 100,000 year graph ...I hope!

It may have been briefly "warmer" during the past interglacials; but for how long or how 'evenly' was the climate as warm or warmer, during those previous interglacials ...compared with our current interglacial?

That which history experienced as the MWP & LIA seems to only register as a level slope on both of these graphs.
Can you imagine civilization's story overlayed onto any other period, from either of these graphs? How lucky have we been?

I'd agree it is prudent not to 'force' our climate too far away from the 'level slope' that civilization (especially agriculture) has enjoyed
...or survived--or not ...since the beginning ~10,000 years ago--so to speak.

~ whistle

p.s. ...or at this scale also, the past ten thousand years are unusually calm, compared to how climate behaved before.
www.soest.hawaii.edu/

Last edited by samwik; 07/18/14 10:05 AM. Reason: add p.s,

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Sam

the below temperature change graph clearly shows that we
are currently in the below 0.0 mark I pointed out.





I like your two images above also.
and I really like the way these images explain that more
cooling is taking place vs warming.

even these two images show a distinct cooling over the
last (+/-) 10,000 yr period , no one could even suggest
that human interaction has caused any warming using these
images , however by using these images they would have a
good argument that humans may have caused an unusual degree
of climate stability along with a steady increase in cooling.

but , I highly doubt that the amount of interaction that
humans have contributed to the climate has had any truly significant effect on the climate.

the earth itself is highly capable and really very stubborn about cooling itself down all by itself as is evident in all
the ice core data.



zoom this page in to 400%.
we are currently at the -1.3 mark on the above graph.
now draw an imaginary line from your right to your left of the
-1.3 mark until you reach apx 120,000 years ago.

you can get a idea of what our future temperatures
will be as the coming ice age approaches.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: paul
I highly doubt that the amount of interaction that humans have contributed to the climate has had any truly significant effect on the climate.
...why?

Search: ruddiman early anthropogenic hypothesis

You don't even need to select any of the search results, but just browse ...to get the idea.
[such as: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110325/full/news.2011.184.html ]
"...new evidence in support of the controversial idea that humanity's influence on climate began not during the industrial revolution, but thousands of years ago. Proposed by palaeoclimatologist William Ruddiman in 2003, the theory says...."

Ruddiman was an early researcher, and is widely cited in old climatology research; but he's now moved beyond the mainstream IPCC dogma, and he sees a more comprehensive, big-picture, perspective ...imho.

http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/ruddiman-william-f/
His "...earliest research was on orbital-scale changes in North Atlantic sediments to reconstruct past sea-surface temperatures and to quantify the deposition of ice-rafted debris."

A few years ago I met with a local climate science professor to ask him about my ideas of soil, and soil's influence on climate. He told me about Ruddiman's ideas, which were along similar lines, and he suggested I read "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate" by William Ruddiman.

Have you not heard of this? His book was "Winner of the 2006 Book Award in Science..." in case that makes any difference for you. Have you also not read 1491, by Mann ...or not read Vestal Fire, by Pyne?
===

As you noted, the planet is "highly capable and really very stubborn about cooling itself down all by itself...." But Humans have been fighting the planet's natural trends, for millennia, as Ruddiman, Mann, Pyne, and others show.

...of course recently we've gone a bit overboard, with that 'industrial age' phase, but we can still moderate things.
~


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
sam

...why?

Im not saying that humans have not added heat to
the atmosphere because its clear that we have
caused additional heat , when I said truly significant
effect on the climate , I meant that what we have done
has not been enough to maintain the warm climate because
the climate is cooling.

and has been steadily cooling for over 10,000 years
which is the apx scientifically recognized time
when civilizations supposedly first appeared.

we cant avoid the ice age and its global cooling
effects by reading books and simply saying that the
climate is warming and making money off of the many
profiteers schemes that are arising because of the
not so well hidden hype of global warming due to human
interaction.

true , you can make it appear that the climate is warming
by only showing people the last few hundred years but as
soon as you look at the natural pattern of global climate change
that is made evident in the ice core data that stretches past several
ice ages you realize that even
with human interaction the climate is still cooling not warming.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: paul
I meant that what we have done
has not been enough to maintain the warm climate because
the climate is cooling.

and has been steadily cooling for over 10,000 years
which is the apx scientifically recognized time
when civilizations supposedly first appeared.


Certainly the Milankovitch Cycle should have 'forced' a steady cooling, it would seem:


...note the "present" at zero, in the center.
Presently, we are near a low point, following a large decline.
===

=>Here is an enlarged image of that most recent decline (at the far right)
...for orbital forcing (dotted line) ...and the temperatures (colored line):


Well, you might expect a cooling trend to have started some 8-10 thousand years ago,
except for some reason temperatures switched with the forcing, with temps now registering above the orbital forcing line.
...hmmmmmm.

~ wink


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


yes , this image also shows that a steady cooling has been
taking place in the last 10,000 years , and clearly shows
the extent that many people will go to in order to circulate propaganda that we are in a warming period due to human interaction.

have a look at the orbital line between the years
-180,000 and -140,000 the temperatures were way
below the orbital forcing line , however there
was a steady decrease in temperatures with fluctuations
of course , and this continued to remain in effect
even as the orbital forcing line dips to its lowest
point at -160,000 years ago and then rebounds to its
highest point around -148,000 years ago and continued
further into -140,000 years ago.

which shows a 40,000 year period that is somewhat
stable accompanied by a steady decrease in temperatures.
could this 40,000 year period have been caused by an
advanced civilization?

of course today any evidence of those civilizations would
be located under the oceans , and we have explored our oceans
to such a great extent that we already know that we know enough to claim that we know it all.

I would say that there is something else other that the
orbit that causes temperature changes and according to this
graph and the vastness of human knowledge it certainly is not human interaction.

of course if you look at the years between
-100 and 0 you can see a slight upturn of temperatures.
and we can of course claim that human interaction has
caused this slight upturn , but that would also mean that
all the other upturns were also due to human interaction
and we have no scientific evidence of advanced civilizations
living hundreds of thousands of years ago.

so we can only go by what we supposedly already know about everything there is and ever was.

and we can feel comfortable about that vast amount of
knowledge and all the books that support the knowledge as
we freeze to death in our homes because of global warming.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Paul, you should learn about the evolution of "interglacial soils," along with what the mastedons and giant beavers were doing to those soils, back in those periods you are wondering about.
Note: Interglacial soils are also called mollisols, chernozems, Temperate-Zone soils, or good agricultural soils.

Originally Posted By: paul


"I would say that there is something else other that the
orbit that causes temperature changes and according to this
graph and the vastness of human knowledge it certainly is not human interaction."
Your certainty is impressive!
...you must be right (and all those others must be wrong).



...it must just be a big coincidence....

~ wink


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


methane kind of hits the nail on the head , wouldnt
you say?

what do you think caused the upturn in methane 5,000 years
ago?

can I suggest a world full of rotting corpses?

we know that apx 11,000 years ago it was a methane
release that brought a end to the last ice age , but
the upturn at 5,000 years ago is much greater than the one at 11,000 years ago according to the above graph.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
recap
:

Carbon dioxide, has steadily increased.

Methane , has steadily increased.

yet temperatures have steadily decreased.

the global warming hypist ( I was once one of them )
for some reason believe that we should reduce the amounts
of carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere.

I believe that these gases are the force that
has brought about our somewhat stabilized warm climate.

these gases are mostly due to rotting plants and animals
and rotting life in general through decomposition
,flatulence , excrement , breathing , etc... LIFE!

all the wildfires that we see occurring around the
globe are removing a lot of the natural methane that
warms the climate.

but we just let them burn out on their own.

and we spend billions on complaining about carbon dioxide which is a much less warming gas.

so , if you want to understand anything in science that
involves climate just read a main stream science approved article and form an opinion on what the article is claiming
that causes the warming , then simply know that
what the article is claiming is completely backwards.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/07/global-warming-%E2%80%98pause%E2%80%99-reflects-natural-fluctuation?et_cid=4059541&et_rid=517749120&type=cta

The term "global warming" should join "continental drift" in the historical archive. They are both misleading.


There never was nothing.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5