|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 11:56:18 GMT -5
CorrectionWhile reading through my last post i came a across a major inconsistency. I used the term “heinrich Cycle”, this is extremely wrong. I meant to say milankovitch cycle. Hienrich events, are events involving floating sea Ice, and sediment transportation, most commonly viewed in srata deposited after heavy glacial periods. Where as Milankovitch Cycles involve the earth’s rotation around the sun. The earths orbit shifts over set periods of time. There are three main types of shifts in Milankovitch cycles. 1. The earths Orbital Shape (the elliptical orbit stretches pulling us further and closer to the sun) 2. Axil Tilt 3. Axil Orientation (both 2 & 3 effect how much of the earth is directly exposed to the sun. Check out wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycleJames referenced this principle earlier as the main source of heating causing the observed global warming trend. What he neglected to tell you is that these cycles run on geologic scales the shortest of the three cycles taking about 26,000 to show influence, the longest being a 100,000 cycle. Not to mention if you simply run global temp off of Milankovitch we have been in a cooling period for the 6,000 years, that shouldn’t end for about 23,000. I know that means the trend in 29,000 and I said the shortest was 26,000 but you have to remember all 3 cycles play off of each other. That's why our society accommodates for physicists to run these type of numbers, while the same society accommodates James to.... Well as I have said before "I don't have all the answers"
|
|
|
Post by degicank on Feb 13, 2007 11:57:56 GMT -5
I must humbly and respectively for the sake of argument say, don't try to Al Gore us here Dr., The graph you displayed shows an alarming upward treand, but by expanding the timescale(400X) it looks like iceages are as regular as the 4 seasons(Figure 1). This is why I have wondered about "global warming" ever since learning the natural Milancovich Cycle back in Earth Science 001 (figure 2)
|
|
|
Post by degicank on Feb 13, 2007 12:02:28 GMT -5
Good question:
Did the Vikings come because the globe was cooler and the gulf stream was faster/stronger, or was the globe warmer and they could find food all the way across?
Any help on this one?
The previous post: I totaly believe the globe is warming and will warm a lot more, there is a cycle of iceages every 12,000yrs and we are just geting to the end of one. Were their industrialized humans 12,000 years ago that caused the last fluctuation global warming followerd by iceage crash? Very possible IMHO
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 12:14:10 GMT -5
Yes but the scale you provided also proves it's own inaccuracies. Unfortunately I doubt that their is a model they can show us, using my 1,000 year scale any where else in geologic time. Don't you allow yourself to be tricked either. If we compare scales my image is only about 3 pixels on you line. (my entire time-line is only 1/10th of a tick mark on yours) so what looks like an upward trend on your graph is what is realtively flat on mine. Now think of the rate of increase.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 12:22:49 GMT -5
this makes the ~ 1 hundred years of warming wich has caused such a stir within the climatological field only 0.025% of the line you are showing, where it is 10% of line I displayed.
make sure you don't hide behind grand numbers and the geologic scale, I did that for a while myself. Good questioning of logic though.
Check out the the CO2 (ppm) on both of our graphs. the lowest value on mine is ~270 ppm see where that places us on yours. and while your at it check out the max values on both. (don't forget mine is going to be more accurate, but it is still a little worrying.
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 13, 2007 13:07:22 GMT -5
So if we have a major volcanic event here in the next six months does this blow your entire theory? or does it prove the natrual global climate shifts. oh yeah if the pole shift as they do in th next three years does that throw off the global warming thing too?
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 13:16:36 GMT -5
I don't see how either would effect my theories? there is volcano eruption every minute of every day. When I said we are in a light period of volcanism I should have said no huamn as ever lived in a heavy period of volcanism. Not washigton in 1980 and not even the people of pompie. and we don't know what a pole shift would do, if anything.
but how would either blow a hole in my theory/truth?
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Feb 14, 2007 14:48:38 GMT -5
You got me Dr.! CO2 >300 ppm not recorded on those ice core graphs for last 400K I posted. That was the research The Founder and Chris W. were doing right?
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 15, 2007 7:48:43 GMT -5
If i remember correclty CO2 was only one of the compouds that the analysis was looking for. I am preaty sure they were using a Gas chromatograph to identify all compounds (and amounts) captured the ice sheets. The professor's name was Todd Sowers: www.geosc.psu.edu/~sowers/
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 19, 2007 12:15:35 GMT -5
Antarctic Water “Blisters” Uncovered Giant "blisters" containing water that rapidly expand and contract have been mapped beneath the Antarctic ice sheet, according to a recent study in the journal Science.
Fed by a complex network of rivers, the subglacial reservoirs force the overlying ice to rise and fall. By tracking these changes with NASA's Ice Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) scientists were able to map the extent of the subglacial plumbing. The results show that some areas fell by up to 30 feet over just two years.
"We didn't realize that the water under these ice streams was moving in such large quantities, and on such short time scales," said Dr Helen Fricker of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California and one of the authors of the study. "We thought these changes took place over years and decades, but we are seeing large changes over months."
The results are important for understanding how the Antarctic Ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world's ice, might respond to global warming and how much it might contribute to sea level rise.
|
|
enviro terrorists are wrong
Guest
|
Post by enviro terrorists are wrong on Feb 19, 2007 12:44:26 GMT -5
Despite billions of dollars and millions of propaganda headlines, the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year. In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies, not including the costs of satellites, ships, and laboratory construction. Climatologists have obtained this immense amount of funding by creating the vision of a man-made planetary climate catastrophe. In the 1970s and the 1980s, computer models of climate prophesied a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere during the next 6O years. The greenhouse effect of this CO2 increase, together with that of other greenhouse gases released by human beings into the atmosphere – CH4, N2O, CFC-11 (freon), and CFC-12 – was supposed to increase the average global surface air temperature by 5°C. In polar regions, the increase was projected to be 10°C. Later, in the 1990s, climatologists truncated the computer model estimates of the man-made increase of global temperature by the year 2100, first to 3°C and then to 2°C. Climate warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases, is usually presented as a gloomy catastrophe that will induce the mass extinction of animals and plants, epidemics of contagious and parasitic diseases, droughts and floods, and even invasions of mutated insects resistent to insecticides. Melting glaciers are predicted to raise sea level by 3.67 meters, flooding islands, densely inhabited coastal areas, and great metropolises. There will be mass migrations and a host of other social and environmental effects – always detrimental, never beneficial. According to one American climatologist, the "scare-them-to-death" approach seems to be the best way to get money for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly: "To capture the public imagination... we have to... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest". The IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, ac-cuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized by numerous scientists today. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no "consensus" for Copernicus's idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians. Continued at: mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 19, 2007 13:46:41 GMT -5
You make to very interesting statements in this article, that I believe are directly correlated.
The first statement that caught my eye concerned the inaccuracies of global models produced in the 1970's and 1980's. The second remark I would care to touch on is this, true but again some what misleading statement, on a scientific consensus.
Believe it or not both of these arguments are 100% related. You have to remember that in Earth sciences, there are 100,000s if not millions of isolated system reactions working together to regulate planetary controls. This existence of an almost incalculable amount of variables the reason for both computer model inaccuracies, as well as the unfortunate need for scientific consensus on cause and effects on this scale.
Your example of Copernicus, though rather easy to conceive, is inappropriate for this comparison (but at the same time perfect). The dynamics of the solar system is actually rather simple to understand when placed in comparison with "predicting" a future earthly climate. The main reason is the amount of variables acting as a control. Planetary physics is almost completely controlled by Newtonian physics (3 simple formulas comparing mass, motion and gravity). Where as Earth system sciences include more variables then I can even begin to list here. The most difficult of them to understand is actually biology. If you every want to study something you can be reasonable sure your getting right, study physics. However if you want to be on the cutting edge of human understanding go for a doctorate in Biology. Again the more variables; the harder to classify and understand.
Oh, and the reason I thought the Copernicus example was “perfect” is because Copernican theory was made by consensus. Because it was Galileo and his telescope that solidified Copernican theory. And don’t forget on the original drafts (and in fact well past Copernicus’ own death) Copernican theory dictated that the ”the center of the universe is near the sun”, which we now know to be false. Science is based on reexaminations of possibilities and through trial and error reaching a consensus of opinion.
Not to mention there is no way hell one person will ever be able to understand the entirety of living in this existence. The only way answers will be obtained is by the communication and interaction of niche thinkers.
|
|
|
Post by give al gore head on Feb 19, 2007 14:52:05 GMT -5
just because you can't support your theory (really an idea since a consensus involves more than half. stop using al gore math to support your ideas) you have to bring up the factors that make it "impossible" to understand it completely thus rendering it scientific theory?
Bullshit. I call shananigans.
I guess your next arguement will be "al gore is throuwing a 7 continent concert this summer so global warming does exist. cameron diaz says so too."
|
|
|
Post by Big Brother on Feb 19, 2007 14:55:02 GMT -5
Although I completely agree with the positions you appear to be supporting (ie global climate is a naturally occuring phenom that has little impact from Man-made pollution...I compare man's impact on the planet as pissing on a fire...little to no effect.) However, I must admit if all of this non-sense does piss-off the average consumer on the world's inefficient use of energy, then I don't think it's all bad.
Words from a baltimore engineer
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 19, 2007 15:39:13 GMT -5
What do you mean I can't support my theory. For one it isn't my theory I am just in support of it. Why do I support this theory you ask, because the facts are proving it every day. No where in recorded history have we observed such a high rate of Temp increase. you can go on and on about milankovitch but it doesn't explain our current rate of CO2 and temp increase. I showed yoiu this earlier and just like every other unwaivering bush blower out their you refuse to look at the data (I can speak on your level also, it is called lowering myself). and for the third time I do not support Al Gore he is a tool in my mind, we just happen to agree on this one issue. Just like I say any guy who likes madonna is a homo. I am sure their are lots of people I don't like who will support my opinion.
What I am looking for is your evidence discrediting global warming, that is all I have asked for in this forum. And truth is I have successfully condemed all your arguments as incorrect. Do we understand all of the process of this planets temperature regulation, no. We have know Idea where all these carbon sinks that continually showing long term models to be varied from actual readings. But we know where the data is leading us. A planet that is increasing at an alarming rate.
What are the finicial benefits of peopple telling us to consume less? Because I surely understand where egotastical shits like Chenney get off saying "environmentalism is vanity" he makes alot of money off that idea. and don't bring up that BS about grant money, you can get grant money to research anything, Global warming or, the mating habits of ants, or why James's shit doesn't stink. I have studied under these people you keep calling liers, and let me go on the record that you have no place to question their honesty. Because that's what your attacks have become, since it is clear you can't beat the truth with your arguments you have gone to name calling, shame on yourself.
|
|