Antarctica warmer 1,000 years ago (economic, claims, laws, depression)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like solar conditions and geothermal volcanic activity? Certainly they are leading factors in global warming and cooling cycles. Not that man doesn't have an impact, just not to that extent and making some obscenely rich people even richer trying to stop it at the poor and middle classes expense doesn't make much sense. Maybe they need to stop sitting on fusion power and stop pushing dead end technologies like batteries and solar.
It should not take a rocker scientist to realize that that global warming/climate change is a thing. However, to what degree (get it?) it is is debatable. Also, some of it is man-made. Some of it is natural!
hawkeye2009 - Why you have more faith in a blog off the internet, telling you what you want to hear rather then then the actual researchers and experts themselves...is beyond me. Like you, I don't like the idea of man-made climate change either. I WISH we could continue business as usual. God that would be great. But like other professionals who are experts in their field, such as doctors or plumbers, our climate change professionals are telling us to act.........we either listen, or ignore them at our own peril.
its time you realize that the IPCC, and other AGW alarmists, are pushing a particular narrative for one reason, power. governments like it because they can then make more regulations to help control the people, and the lemmings(the people) like it because they seem to like being led around by their nose rings.
if you were intellectually honest with yourself, you would realize this, but you would rather prefer to be led around by your nose ring, and show off how supple your spine is, and how tough you knees are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grampaTom
Your rhetoric might be more persuasive if it wasn't so offensive. I think you have a good point but the way you present it puts folks off.
I agree with grampaTom, but I chuckle nonetheless at the thought of spine suppleness and knee toughness.
Ancient maps show Antactica coastline without ice.
A medieval-era map, discovered in a Turkish palace in 1929, is dated 1513, yet it shows a knowledge of faraway lands well beyond the areas European explorers had traveled and even shows land features Europeans couldn’t possibly of known about in 1513…like the Andes Mountains of South America and the coastline of the Antarctic under the ice. https://historydaily.org/ancient-map...ne-without-ice
Yes, Ive read about some of these ancient maps, they are not sure how people knew these things back then, its really pretty interesting.
Your rhetoric might be more persuasive if it wasn't so offensive. I think you have a good point but the way you present it puts folks off.
tough, i call them as i see them on forum like this. far too often people dance around the the truth to avoid hurting someones "feelings" so i am sorry that i am not politically correct, but there are times when you have to be bold about the truth, and stop pussyfooting around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montroller
There is not one single thing intellectually honest about your entire rant.
However, I doubt you will be open to any evidence that might contradict what you would like to believe. If someone isn't prepared to let data inform their opinion, then it isn't worth arguing.
That would be you and all the other blind deniers on this forum.
i have looked at a lot of evidence from both sides of the argument, and i dont need someone to tell me what my conclusions should be. and there is PLENTY of geological evidence that this round of warming is nothing more than a natural event, one that had been going on for the last 2 million years, ever since the north and south american continents collided. 100,000 years ago the arctic was ice free. and as has been noted many times by many people in many ways, here are a few truths you need to take into account;
1: we are out of the last period of glaciation by only 15,000 years roughly
2: the AGW crowd is complaining about an increase of 1 degree C over 150 years, but there is geological evidence that 15,000 years ago the temperature went up by something more like 10-15 degrees C in TEN years.(i didnt know there are that many SUVs back then, who knew?)
3: we are still ten degrees COOLER than at this same time during the last intergalciation period, and the one before that, and the one before that for the last 2 million years. and its funny how the AGW crowd FAILS to take into account previous interglaciation periods, and what was NATURAL warming.
and if you think that i am just being crazy, then why is the IPCC scientists solution always more regulations and more taxes and redistributing the wealth of the developed nations to those nations that are still developing? and why is it that all the so called climate change protocols penalize the developed nations, mostly western europe and the US, and ignore the rest of the world? why is china given a pass, along with india? two of the highest CO2 emitters in the world?
if the AGW message was more consistent, and required ALL countries to stick to the climate change protocols, then perhaps their message might be more acceptable, and more people might actually listen to them.
in the end these protocols are nothing more than a way for the UN to control the worlds population, and to work to usher in one world government with the UN running things, and no national sovereignty of any kind.
now you claim i am a science denier, but that isnt the truth here. i suppose you also consider the science settled, and that is NEVER the case. the science is NEVER settled, except in the case of the closed minded, non scientific lemmings.
We are entering a Grand Solar Minimum, which will cause cooler temperatures around the globe over the next fifty years. During that time, the notion of "global warming" will become a distant memory of a time when half of American fell for an absurd hoax, hook, line and sinker.
It sounds more like you do not understand the information you are discussing rather than others being dishonest.
If you actually followed the science you would know that today the strongest force changing the climate is human activities...The other forcings are weak today.
"Followed the science"?
And what exactly are your credentials and training to understand this "science"? Answer: You pulled the "D" lever in the voting booth.
Here is news for you- The laws of physics have not changed on the planet and the same factors that influenced climate thousands (and millions) of years ago are in play today. CO2 did not miraculously appear in the atmosphere in the 19th and 20th centuries. It has been present on the planet since "weather" appeared and has been present at levels 20X that of today.
With levels of CO2 20X that of today, did the planet "boil away"? Of course not- life thrived.
I really enjoy how a liberal (who are masters at revising truth and history) will note other factors involved in climate in the past, but completely dismiss those factors today, as if they don't exist.
So tell me.................... How do you mathematically attribute the partial effect of each factor that contributes to climate? Obviously you have a secret mathematical formula that precisely attributes how much of this .1 degree temp change is due to CO2 vs solar activity, volcanic activity, ocean currents, the earths orbit, and the earths magnetic field, right? You probably have it down to a margin of error of .01%.
So tell me................. why are the laws of physics different today than they were 1000 years ago? They are different............. in the ignorant minds of gullible liberals.
And what exactly are your credentials and training to understand this "science"? Answer: You pulled the "D" lever in the voting booth.
Here is news for you- The laws of physics have not changed on the planet and the same factors that influenced climate thousands (and millions) of years ago are in play today. CO2 did not miraculously appear in the atmosphere in the 19th and 20th centuries. It has been present on the planet since "weather" appeared and has been present at levels 20X that of today.
With levels of CO2 20X that of today, did the planet "boil away"? Of course not- life thrived.
I really enjoy how a liberal (who are masters at revising truth and history) will note other factors involved in climate in the past, but completely dismiss those factors today, as if they don't exist.
Yet in your own example you seem to ignore that the sun was weaker 440 million years ago, if you were talking about the Ordovician- Silurian time period, then it is today when comparing CO2 levels. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-hig...termediate.htm
Quote:
So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
So tell me.................... How do you mathematically attribute the partial effect of each factor that contributes to climate? Obviously you have a secret mathematical formula that precisely attributes how much of this .1 degree temp change is due to CO2 vs solar activity, volcanic activity, ocean currents, the earths orbit, and the earths magnetic field, right? You probably have it down to a margin of error of .01%.
So tell me................. why are the laws of physics different today than they were 1000 years ago? They are different............. in the ignorant minds of gullible liberals.
Why would the laws of physics need to be different today? Why did you mention 1000 years ago when the CO2 example you used was from hundreds of millions of years ago? If you mean to mention the medieval warm period. https://skepticalscience.com/medieva...termediate.htm
Quote:
The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.