Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The California coast has already proven water levels have risen greatly in the past several thousand years.

Over 100 sites have been found since 1970. Most half a mile out and 50 feet deep. Some dated as early as 1,500 years ago.
 


You may be mixed up about this. Greenland has always been cold. Growing grapes on Greenland would have meant it would have to have been some 15C higher in temperature than it is today, which would have meant vast quantities of the ice sheet would have been melted and there's evidence that they have been there for hundreds of thousands of years.

Vinland could be vin(with an accent over the i)-land, or Wineland. But recently the competing theory has been that vin(without the accent)-and meant pasture land, this is from an old Norse word for pasture, so the land discovered could simply be described as pasture land. Moreover it's possible that with Vinland they were not describing Greenland at all, but rather a part of America, with many scholars indicating they believed that Vikings had landed at America some 500 years prior to the discoveries of Columbus, supported by excavations at L'Anse Aux Meadows. In the 16th century Icelanders realised that this 'New World' described in Europe was very similar to the lands described in their Vinland Sagas.

Wild grapes also aren't that tasty or useful, we can grow them here in the UK. At my grandmothers there's a decades of wild grape vine growing that's survived frosts, heatwaves etc., they are relatively hardy as opposed to cultivated grapes, which shrivel up and die at the first sign of a cold spell.

There have been human settlements on the coast for at least 8000 years. I don't see how evidence of human settlement at sea level that's at least 1000 years old means this is all BS. It like saying find me evidence of trees going back a 100 years and if they're there this mean deforestation is BS.

On your previous post, I too called for honesty, saying that the data should have been released in the first place and I agree they shouldn't have withheld the data.

But your government surely produces a report on what it expects to achieve regarding taxation and how much will be spent on what. If you take this attitude do you feel that the US government should release data and information about top secret DARPA and military projects? Even if such a move would jeopardise national security? Not so long ago the US government released information about who would receive grants regarding renewable energy projects, it's Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy release details of how it would be spending the $150 million given to it for research projects.
 
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
As the archaeologists dug through the permafrost and removed the windblown glacial sand that filled the rooms, they found fragments of looms and cloth

And lastly, google is your friend, and sinks this whole theory of super rising waters
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=3&oq=vikimgs+greenland&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enUS315US315&q=vikings+greenland+farming

I guess thatd be semi perm frost.
 
A church graveyard at Herjolfsnes on the southernmost tip of Greenland sheds further light on the final days of the Eastern Settlement. Reports reached Danish archaeologists in the 1920s that the cemetery was being washed away by the sea and that bones and scraps of clothing from the graves were strewn on the beach.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
It appears from this, the vikings had built near the sea, and the sea had risen over the years to overtake their cemetery.
Since this is known, and the perma frost of today wasnt perma frost then, and the waters have risen since 900AD to 1920 AD, to the point of washing out the cemetery, then what were seeing now is more of the same, except it was warmer back then by far than it is today.
So, after centuries of warmer temps, nothing was "all lost", and then it got colder, and we went into our mini ice age. Now were coming out of it again, and so this too is adopted by the world enders, we need your money peoples.
Again, Im not saying its possible one way or the other, and Im not saying we need to do better, and find better wethods, but when you have Al Gore screaming the Ice cap will be gone in 2-3 years, it was obvious that the vikings hunted polar bear for trade and usage when it was much much warmer.
Theres too many holes in this theory, tho other motives of conservation fits well by me
 


...Right. Well first of all I said that the ice cores were from ice sheets not permafrost.

Taken from the first site you mentioned - 'Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep [fjord] on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming.' This indicates they couldn't have grown grapes there as the conditions were similar to what they were in Iceland. The article indicates the land was that arable. If Greenland were the Vinland described how were they to grow grapes?

I don't see how any of the first page of results 'sinks this whole theory of super rising waters'. I don't think I've mentioned super rising waters. Rising waters yes, rising waters caused by man-made global warming indeed but super rising waters? Care to direct me to a page from the search results that 'sinks' said never mentioned previously theory?

Give me a minute for the next one... 😉
 
Take your time, as the next one kills it all since perma frost is exactly that, and remember all those "claims" of the "perma frost" heating up because of our so called man made global warming?
They grew berries there, and wild grapes grow in cold climes. Now, if it was that warm back then, what caused it?
People are saying it couldnt be volcanoes, since supposedly we do so sooo much more harm. It couldnt have been us, as our populations were minimal, and our contributions as well.
So, what caused it?
And, since we know that the so called perma frost was grass covered ground with small shrub as well, this hasnt happened yet.
They also claim the polar bear will die with no hunting grounds once the ice is gone. Well, it appears the polar bears were doing quite well back then, when it was much much warmer, for whatever unexplained reason it was, which killed off all of mankind oh.... wait, it didnt happen, none of it did, and we still have polar bears, and were still here, and its still much much colder as well
 


The cemetery could have indeed be slowly lost due to rising sea levels but they aren't the only option and looking at the bigger picture it's unlikely to be the reason. Coastal erosion is possible as are landslides as the landscape is highly mountainous with little foliage to root down any soil there.

Most temperature graphs indicate that the average global temperature was lower than it has been recently for two thousand years or so prior to now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png), which is more than the range you describe, and the sea level has been level until recently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png for recently)

These temperature comparison graph shows that it's been a changing temperature for the last two thousand years, the graph indeed shows the mini-age and medieval warm periods, but also, most importantly, show that since around 1850 or so that the temperature has been increasing beyond that of the medieval warm period.

Al Gore is a bit of a moron who far from helping the cause has reduced himself to the same level of his detractors by scaring the public instead of explaining the data and the facts, which would have been harder but better in the end for the debate. He should never have said that the ice caps will be gone in 2-3 years (if he ever did), but I reckon that around 2025 the Arctic will be free from sea ice apart from in a few channels between the Arctic islands during the summer if nothing is changed.
 
All that is simply impossible. You do know what perma frost is?
The archeologists had to dig through the perma frost, recently, whereas back then it didnt exist, or do you think they dug all this up when it started to get cold?
Re Read my links, proofs right there.
Besides wiki, who or what is the influence on those temp charts? Theyre obviously seriously wrong, according to fact, accoding to what we have today, as its colder now, having current perma frost, as to back then, when somehow, for whatever reason, it was warmer, not colder, and no, the land there was colder before the warm up, and the soils are poor, have had little growth, inferile if you will. The growable/fertile soils are thin, has nothing to do with rock right underneath or anything of that nature, there was a period where seeds blown airborn landed and grew, and for only a short time, a couple centuries, where thats not enough time to create a thick decent soil for growing things, and is easily depleted of neutrients.
Over grazing came easier, as well as no or low organic materials existing or pre existing, making the soil itself softer, and bad top soil at that.
So, it wasnt perma frost then, but is now, which tells us what? Its colder now.
It cant support these things now, it did then. The waters have risen since then and 1920, which shows a melting or some kind of sea level change for whatever reasons, without mans influence.
If you can draw it was colder then than it is now, please show me how, as I just dont see it in the findings, and what we have today

Also, it says the cemetery was getting washed away by the sea, not erosion
 


No but I do remember the evidence that permafrost is heating up (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-07-01.asp) (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625034.700).

As I have stated the non-cultivated fruits and berries are generally a lot hardier than there cultivated counterparts whom are bred for taste and yield. Brambles can grow in higher latitudes and still yield fruit. You are right to point out that we do not know what caused the medieval warm period, and volcanic eruptions would have to be on a large scale producing a lot of sulphite etc., which would have cooled the planet initially before clearing and the effects of CO2 started producing a heating effect. These sulphites would likely have been then deposited on the ice sheets in snow, and the reason volcanoes have likely been ruled out is that there is no evidence for this.

Perhaps the medieval warm period was caused by some massive release of methane pockets, by either an earthquake or a small volcanic eruption, which could have caused the short (relatively speaking) warming period.

The polar bears COULD have been doing well back then, but perhaps it was more likely they weren't but there weren't any population censuses for them so we will never be able tell, but a reduction in ice caps, i.e. there breeding/hunting/living grounds will certainly have done their population no favours. Polar bears will die out without hunting grounds, that not a claim it's a fact. In the wild, without hunting grounds, the polar bears will be unable to feed, it's the same for any species. Another risk is the more rapid break-up of Arctic ice, because polar bears can drown is the distance is too great.

The warming of this period is lower in voracity than the heating that that is occurring now, and it's not much much colder now, it's much warmer now.
 
Again re read my link.
The vikings hunted the polar bears. This is south of much of the polar bears living area today, as it was then as well, as the vikings hunted and traded the bears, as they were considered very highly, and used for nobility.
So, we have much warmer periods, centuries that we know of, where it was much warmer, polar bears thrived and were hunted, the ground wasnt frozen as it is today, for centuries, and global warming is telling us that theres no alternative, and if it gets 1C warmer were all doomed, you still buying this?
Centuries of much warmer temps, not 90 years like they claim, where its still much colder today than back then.
When we lose our perma frost there at these sites for centuries, then we can start to wonder if itll ever let up as far as Im concerned
Please, read my link. today is colder than then, as today, its buried in perma frost, while it was livable climes then.
 


Hang on, wait, wait, wait, hang on. What?

Permafrost is defined in the New Penguin Encyclopedia published 2002 as 'Perennially frozen ground in low temperature regions of Earth. It is underlain at depth by unfrozen ground, and also overlain by an active surface layer which thaws in summer and refreezes in Autumn.' Are you sure that I am the one who needs to understand what it is? I never said anything about permafrost until I mentioned your arguments regarding it. Permafrost has been around for many years, maybe thousands, likely to be thousands. - 'perennially frozen'. Cores aren't taken from them because they are soil and measuring historical CO2 levels is just plain easier from ice sheets. I have no idea of the permafrost situation in Greenland past or present.

The influence on the temperature charts are available within the links, under the charts. These notes on them also contain citations linking them to the data sets. They are correct as they are based on fact, they are not incorrect. It's not colder now, it's warmer now, I have seen one of the leading sceptics at a conference run by sceptics get on stage and say to the effect of 'The climate is warming and we may have something to do with it'.

There was permafrost back then, and there is less now, what does that tell us? It's warmer. How we've come from Vinland to permafrost is odd. I never mentioned permafrost on Greenland.
 


Yes the Vikings hunted and traded in polar bears, along with 'White falcons'. I read that much.

The range of the polar bears extends to Hudson Bay in Canada, which is at similar latitudes to the areas believed to have been settle on by Vikings.

Indeed we had the medieval warm period, however, it's warmer than that now, with an upwards trend. I'd like to see evidence that polar bears thrived. Existed, survived, adapted, available in hunt-able numbers, certainly so it would seem, but THRIVED?

There's nothing to be brought. It's just common sense. 500,000,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 have been released since industrialisation by humanity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's increased by 35% in ppm terms, from 285ppm to 385 ppm.

Once again I direct you to the temperature chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png) which has citations for the data set involved. It shows the medieval warm period, and the mini ice age. It also shows that at around 1990 or so the temperature went above the temperature for the medieval warm period and has showed no sign of abating.
 
The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level by the weight of the ice sheet. Thus, if the ice suddenly melted, much of central Greenland would be under water.[6]
The weight of the massive Greenland ice sheet has depressed the central land area to form a basin lying more than 300 m (1,000 ft) below sea level.[29]

Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago. These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000–116,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
 
My point is, the land is acruing soil, or they wouldnt have had to dig, and perma frost goes deep, deeper than these settlements, which likely had permafrost below them when they were built, but several feet below . which means the perma frost is nearer the surface now than back then, but I could be wrong, as theres no evidence of that, but again, since it was as warm as middle Canada there before, and we know the Mamoths also existed as far north and further, whats makes anyone think this isnt nature itself?
Too much evidence, and the Mamoths are only 12000 years old, when man was here with them.
So, between what we know more recently about Greenland, and the mamoths, we survived then, we will survive this too whatever it is, as it isnt close to being that warm yet
 


...Okay. I did indeed see that the weight of the ice has depressed the bedrock beneath, and that if all the ice suddenly melted this region would be underwater when I originally read it (to find the average temperature for Nuuk earlier).

It should noted that in 450,000 years a lot has changed, and any changes could be slow... But I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Five hundred billion tonnes of human CO2 emissions are what makes people think it's not nature. T

The mammoths indeed went extinct, but they couldn't have adapted in the way humans did, with our use of tools and shelter.

And the temperatures weren't necessarily that high ('probably') and Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, has an average high of 9.9C in July and doesn't drop below the -10C in winter, which is above the minimum temperature for the winter in these boreal forests. Although the point that the glaciers did not completely melt away is well taken, but it's still only an indication, but even if correct it's not the same as none of the glaciers melting away.

This warmth could have been caused by something else, such as a shift in the Gulf stream that pushed it around Greenland, but natural warming by all means could have caused the increase.

While it may not appear that we are that close yet to the 5C rise, there are delays in these systems and even small increases could push us over tipping points that would lead to more warming which would lead to more warming etc.

P.S. Won't be answering until 9 hours or so from now (it's 1.10 am local time here).
 
Do they have a mathmatic breakdown of the entire atmospheric breakdown in total volume, at all levels for the planet, and do they also have hard certain proof of CO2s effect at percentages per volume spread across area (so high wide and deep) ?
It sounds like an easy math problem to solve, but take into consideration of other effects we simply dont know, such as plants and animals, and how it effects CO2, the sunlight itselfs effects on CO2.
If you have those links, and its all bonafied by INDEPENDENT sources, not aligned with this at all, period, and can be vouched for, then maybe itll get my attention.
Climatologists are an exclusive club, like any scientific group, and independent thought at this point is either ridiculed or mum, especially this hot button issue.
But Id need numbers and experiments done thatre corroborated as well
 


Breakdowns of the composition of Earth are easily found ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere )( http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html )( http://www.indiana.edu/~geog109/topics/01_atmosphere/permanent_gases.html ). Historical CO2 levels have tracked historical temperature fluctuations and the release of CO2 was slower than what we see now from man-made emissions. Historical CO2 levels here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Historical_variation and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png The latter is of particular note as it correlates to this graph ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png ). We see that the CO2 graphs starts at 400k years ago, with descending CO2 concentration, and go to the other graph to note a fall in temperature at 400k years ago. The peaks then are in accordance with each other until the modern era when the CO2 starts a huge rise, well above any concentration for the last 400,000 years.

We know the sunlights effects on CO2, as I explained earlier it absorbed photons in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Here the data for its spectral properties - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_(data_page)#Spectral_data from the table we see that the molecules major absorption bands are at 4.25 micrometres and 14.99 micrometres. Going to the electromagnetic spectrum ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Light_spectrum.png ) we see that Infrared stretches from approximately 1 to 100 micrometres, which means the major absorption peaks are in the infrared range. As I said it likes to absorbs CO2 and dissipate to the surroundings when the photon would merely have bounced harmlessly away into space. As such the temperature of the atmosphere increases.

The effects of plant life on countering CO2 emissions have been severely restricted and deforestation inherently means that there are less plants to absorb CO2 emissions. Would they grow better with more CO2? Evidence suggests they would. But the greater consequences of an increase in CO2 would mean that the climate needed for survival would change and by the nature of plants the can't simply up sticks and leave, so would be killed off by an increase in temperature, more storms, more rain, more dry spells. (the experiment that suggests they would assumed adequate nutrient supply and no change in temperature ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2#Role_in_photosynthesis )).

Unfortunately it would appear any link I show you (relating to CO2 and temperature levels) you'll say that they're not independent as shown by you rebuttal of perfectly acceptable and correct data and data trends. The composition of gases in the atmosphere is pretty independent, as is the spectral data for CO2 and horticulturists don't have some grand scheme to agree with climatologists and CO2s role in photosynthesis is well documented so the photosynthesis bit is independent.

Climatologists are in an 'exclusive club', as are nuclear physicists, theoretical physicists, brain surgeons etc., but of course they are when you need advanced qualifications to call yourself one, such as a PhD. Not everyone can afford a PhD and even if they could there are plenty of other fields of study that may be of more interest to them.
 
Just saw something that shows its going up 2 parts per billion a year, and that going from trapped air in ice dating 250 years ago.
How accurate is those numbers.
Does CO2 disapate in the ice?
It said CO2 disapates quickly within the atmosphere, so its natrualy element is of course in a gaseous one, seeking it constantly, so Id guess thered be some kind of loss, and instead of using just pure numbers as they do here, seek that info out first.
If leeching occurs, their measuring system could be extremely flawed, and no they didnt account for any leeching, but thats what theyre preaching.
Deforestation has already been shown as bullocks, as an acre of ground will produce a certain amount of foilage no matter what we do, I look at it as a force of nature, much like when we find life 4 miles down in the extremely hot and acidic waters of the vents, theres tons of minerals for food stuffs, so life proliferates there.
Its like my point about te cows, theyre supposedly contributing to all this, well before we took over, those sa,e lands contained buffalo here in the US, as well as other larger beasts elsewheres, now we have cows etc.
The balance hasnt been changed as they claim, but again, they only use the cows, they dont account for the buffalo.
Theres just too many holes in their claims
Also, its my understanding that if temps do rise, then leafy plants take the place of coniferous ones, and leafy trees use more CO2 than do coniferous ones, so adaption again by mother earth applies here as well, and no, Im not saying there wouldnt be transistional change, but again, this accounts for no change at all, only loss according to them.
Theyre obviously handing out worse case scenarios, and because of this, the fact they may have fudged their numbers, keep them private for all alternatives, or certain alternatives are ignored over and over again, but we dont have the "rights" to them, well we do have those rights, and since were paying them, we have our rights to criticize them as well, plus were due a full spectrum of POV concerning this, not just a finely tuned POV
 
Elements do not have a natural state. They do not seek anything out.

Deforestation does cause a lot of damage, that is not bollocks.

Herds of animals have always been, but nothing compared to human reared ones as the laws of nature have been removed.
 
Elements do seek things out.
Thats where we get molecules for one. Its an ongoing existence.
Like magnets, and Im not all up on it, tho I do understand how it happens, and just like carbon dating, it too can be effected, and like carbon dating, does this include what Im saying, as the leeching effect occurs over time, as various things are attracted, and spent and mixed

My questions about their attitudes about deforestation is, do they just completely write off that felled acre of trees? It appears they do, when we all know that soon after, other plants take their place, ones that grow that couldnt before, because of lack of sunlight etc, and by the thousands, not just 1 huge tree, and make up, at least to some degree, the losses
Thats where Im coming from, which stats are they using? Bare land after cutting, or new growth included, making their impact?

And elaborating on thwe carbon dating, theres things that effect carbon, and the carbon dating itself, found in the ground, the air etc, there event that do this as well, like fires for near surface dating etc, radioactive materials in the ground etc, all these things effect the exact numbers, and theyve been accused of using worst case scenarios, and in some ways have even left out other findings completely, which added up means alot
 


Carbon dating (or more accurately, radio carbon dating) does work, back to about 500 million years as it is measuring how much of the carbon 14 isotope is left in a sample. So it has nothing to do with carbon, really, but radioactive decay of a known element with a known (and very long) half life. There are other isotopes that have a longer half life, but carbon is always there when dealing with earthly life forms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom