Global Warming in the last 10 000 years

These are some interesting graphs that show "Global Warming" of the last 10 000 and 1000 years.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae7fe9237503.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/028f48baf16e.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see, different sources come to similar conclusions (see sources on the graphs themselves. I found these and hundreds more by typing "Global Warming Graph 10 000 years" into Google).

My point? Well, the pictures speak for themselves dont they? The idea that Global Warming MUST be caused by humans and that there is no other possibility has no merit whatsoever. . The reason Global Warming proponents need endless studies is because a falsehood needs a lot of repeating before it sticks.

But if "Global Warming" isnt caused by humans, what is it caused by then?

Maybe the sun? Last I heard, the Sun is responsible for warmth. The sun is also intensely more powerful and big than humans. If you would put all of humanity into one room, that room would still be the size of a speck of dust compared to the sun. Are you trying to tell me its not actually the Sun but a tiny speck causing "Global Warming" ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/758dafc43786.jpg[/atsimg]

Actually I did not feel confident to make this thread until today. I always felt impressed by the science. I could see the short-term stats that proved an increase in global temperature. But today I met a proponent of Global Warming and nothing he explained or said made any sense. Either I am too stupid to understand it or there was nothing to understand. And he insisted that there is no other possibility. If someone insists there is no other possibility, I am dealing with a fanatic. Life has taught me that fanatics are usually so fanatic because they are wrong.. If they were right there would be no need to so forcefully try to make a point.

But why is the idea of man-made Global Warming apparently accepted by 90% of the scientific establishment? I really dont know.

reply to post by Skyfloating

If you would put all of humanity into one room, that room would still be the size of a speck of dust compared to the sun. Are you trying to tell me its not actually the Sun but a tiny speck causing "Global Warming" ?

While not disagreeing with your posts overall point, I find this quoted comparison difficult to swallow.

Because what you appear to be saying with this statement is that 'climate change' theory implies that humans are radiating heat in the same way the sun is, which is of course not the case. Climate change posits, among other things, that human-released CO2 is acting as an insulator for the planet, not that people are literally radiating heat like the sun does.

Neat topic, though, for sure.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Great post.

I have been advocating the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval period for quite a while as a way to show that man-made global warming is just a farce.

The sun has a greater impact on the Earth than anything else IMO, but a lot of people fail to acknowledge it.

Is it any wonder that ancient cultures for thousands of years before us worshiped the sun as their provider for everything?

Good post... I hope this sheds some light on the subject. (pun intended)

~Namaste

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

If you would put all of humanity into one room, that room would still be the size of a speck of dust compared to the sun. Are you trying to tell me its not actually the Sun but a tiny speck causing "Global Warming" ?

While not disagreeing with your posts overall point, I find this quoted comparison difficult to swallow.

Because what you appear to be saying with this statement is that 'climate change' theory implies that humans are radiating heat in the same way the sun is, which is of course not the case. Climate change posits, among other things, that human-released CO2 is acting as an insulator for the planet, not that people are literally radiating heat like the sun does.

I don't know where you inferred that from... I didn't get that the OP was suggesting that humans themselves are the cause of the radiating heat... I read it as though the OP was saying humans are not the cause of the heat, period, and based that on the graphs presented.

What gave you that impression???

~Namaste

I myself question everything. Even my wife gets annoyed by my analytical behavior. However, there are a few things I have a very hard time questioning.
One of them is the melting of the polar ice caps. The differences can be seen plain as day from NASA satellites. It just makes me wonder that if scientists use drilling methods to measure carbon data from thousands of years ago. Which is Probably how the graph you have displayed was created. Obviously that ice didn't melt during the last warming period. Or did it?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Because what you appear to be saying with this statement is that 'climate change' theory implies that humans are radiating heat in the same way the sun is,

No, I didnt say or mean to say that humans are radiating heat. I meant to make a comparison of size.

The insister is a fool. But we should not forget that the issue of climate change was the underdog in the social and political equation until 03, when the Pentagon study came out with CC high on it's list of threats to the US.
And even then it did not become a political issue other than the Bush administration denying it.

I am not a climatoligist or a meteorologist or anything like that. I am an eschatologist and I have watched the concerns over climate change from the time they were so scoffed at that the only place a layman could read about it was the National Inquirer.

Slowly over the years more and more scientists kept adding more and more evidence until now we have the situation you describe above with 90% saying yes. Is it only money and funding being channeled into CC research that is causing this preponderance of research. Maybe so.


My point here is, the pro believers have been predicting for quite a while that the first recognizable effects of CC would be dramatic changes in weather patterns, not that things would just get hotter. From what we have been seeing this does appear that it might be the case.

Now, I'm not saying that it is being caused by man. But I'm not saying it isn't either. Maybe the sun. Sure. I loved it when I first heard about the other planets warming up also. Maybe we are just passing through a warm spot in space.

See a glass full of water? Filled to the brim so that the surface tension actually allows the water to rise above the rim? This is just how fragile our ecosystem is. Could human activity be that last drop which breaks that tension to spill the over flow onto the floor? Maybe not . But maybe so. I know which side of that equation is best believed.

But mostly I think the issue that is most important around the whole question is that it brings our focus, either pro or con, onto just how fragile and tenuous life on this planet is and that we need to live in ways that always take that into account.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Because what you appear to be saying with this statement is that 'climate change' theory implies that humans are radiating heat in the same way the sun is,

No, I didnt say or mean to say that humans are radiating heat. I meant to make a comparison of size.

Right, but a comparison of SIZE would need to be between similar entities or objects with similar claims to effect.

Your comparison is implying that because all the humans put together don't equal the size of the sun that humans can't effect their environment? To me that just seems like conflation. Apples and oranges, some say.

No one is saying humans are radiating heat in the way the sun is, so comparing the size of the sun to the mass of humans is non-sequiter as far as I can tell.

Thanks for the polite response.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Because comparing the size/mass of the sun to the size/mass of all humanity, as the OP does, does not correlate. Saying the sun is bigger than all people collected doesn't address the theory that human-induced carbon emission are to blame for alleged warming trends. It is a conflation.

The global warming agenda is all based on making money.It's a bunch of baloney to make money for idiots like Al Gore. The scientists say what their paid to say if they want their reasearch funded.The scientists whose research is not funded by the government mostly say it's baloney for the reasons posted here in this thread. Without the government supported scientists to justify global warming then the agenda to impose a carbon tax and promote the sale of "carbon credits" falls apart.They tried to impose a carbon tax in Canada last year, but the canadian citizens are too smart to fall for the baloney and got it deep sixed.
If you want to know why something like this is happening follow the money.That's what it's all about.

reply to post by lonegurkha



I think you are right about carbon credits. It IS a scheme. It is a scheme which will allow those who already have a wad of cash to keep it and use it to make sure that they can keep doing what they have been doing all along. Raping the environment and exploiting the peoples of the world. If a carbon credit plan can not be worked out, they will take their support and put it on some other idea which will allow them to maintain their power.

However I find your understanding about following the money ends there. As information began to emerge into the public's awareness, it was not being funded by huge amounts of government money. The early results which indicated that we might have a problem came from small and isolated from the mainstream scientists whose results began matching up with others like themselves. Some of these scientists WERE receiving federal money as funding but by no means was it a huge amount. AND it was not just scientists in the US. It was scientists from all over the globe, well apart from US money who were coming up with conclusions which dovetailed with the findings of so many others. Though this may or may not be true now, it was not the case until recently.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, when GWB was in office the US government was NOT promoting CC as true. The first big statement from the US government was the Pentagon Statement in I think it was 03. Even then the Bush administration did not agree with the Pentagon and continued to deny that there was CC.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Nice presentation....although I'm not a fan of this theory.

In short, we now, and have had the tech to measure temps of other celestial bodys in our system, and IMO, we need to have the same graphs and charts for say our monn, mars, and other planets to even be able to propose a theory on "man made global warming"
It just iritates me to see ppl all jump on the al Gore wagon and say its real...yeah history shows temps drop and rise "on earth"......BUT is it only on our lil planet "we are measuring", or is it affecting all the planets in our solar system.

We need to see if by eliminating "measuring" the other 9 or 8 bodies in our sytem...as to whether they too have temp changes that correspond to our lil rock "earth"

Once that info. is made available and comparison charts made....IMO global warming is just the newest PTB fad, and/or money grab....to put fear in the masses...

Like all theories there must be a constant or multiple comparisons..in short , to me global warming is like putting only one pot on the stove and not measuring the temp of the otehr 4 pots on the same stove top, or oven.


star for the charts....well presented, as always.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by lonegurkha

 

I think you are right about carbon credits. It IS a scheme. It is a scheme which will allow those who already have a wad of cash to keep it and use it to make sure that they can keep doing what they have been doing all along. Raping the environment and exploiting the peoples of the world. If a carbon credit plan can not be worked out, they will take their support and put it on some other idea which will allow them to maintain their power.

However I find your understanding about following the money ends there. As information began to emerge into the public's awareness, it was not being funded by huge amounts of government money. The early results which indicated that we might have a problem came from small and isolated from the mainstream scientists whose results began matching up with others like themselves. Some of these scientists WERE receiving federal money as funding but by no means was it a huge amount. AND it was not just scientists in the US. It was scientists from all over the globe, well apart from US money who were coming up with conclusions which dovetailed with the findings of so many others. Though this may or may not be true now, it was not the case until recently.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, when GWB was in office the US government was NOT promoting CC as true. The first big statement from the US government was the Pentagon Statement in I think it was 03. Even then the Bush administration did not agree with the Pentagon and continued to deny that there was CC.

I think that you will find that the studies showed that the world was heating up not why.The op has it correct the sun is going through a warming phase and is responsible for the warming not CO2,which is actually a lousey greenhouse gas.If the gas they were claiming to be causing the problem was methane then I would worry.There is actually evidence that there were times during the ice ages when CO2 levels were higher than today. I actually read that on a thread here on ATS.

Originally posted by lonegurkha


I think that you will find that the studies showed that the world was heating up not why

.The op has it correct the sun is going through a warming phase and is responsible for the warming not CO2,

Actually, the OP is only speculating as to the sun being the 'cause'. Stating an opinion and dressing it as fact, as you just have, while denying information you disagree with out-of-hand doesn't a scientifically sound observation make.

I think there is a lot of interesting info on both 'sides' of this debate, and it's annoying to me when those on either' side insult the debate by such over-the-top dismissals.

Saying 'it's all the sun' without even providing credible information to verify is as baseless as saying 'it's all man made'.

Originally posted by Flyzoid
I myself question everything. Even my wife gets annoyed by my analytical behavior. However, there are a few things I have a very hard time questioning.
One of them is the melting of the polar ice caps. The differences can be seen plain as day from NASA satellites. It just makes me wonder that if scientists use drilling methods to measure carbon data from thousands of years ago. Which is Probably how the graph you have displayed was created. Obviously that ice didn't melt during the last warming period. Or did it?

The reason the polar ice caps are melting is due to soot buildup from pollution on the ice caps....soot is a bigger contributor to ice melting than anything else. It explains why the ice caps are melting while the average global tempritures are dropping.

Those in power know this but are emitting the evidence of it because the physical evidence of ice melting can be used to justify the false data that the world is warming to the masses.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Your comparison is implying that because all the humans put together don't equal the size of the sun that humans can't effect their environment? To me that just seems like conflation. Apples and oranges, some say.

No one is saying humans are radiating heat in the way the sun is, so comparing the size of the sun to the mass of humans is non-sequiter as far as I can tell.

Im not saying that humans cant effect their environment. The analogy is meant to show that the sun, owing to its size, is more likely to effect the climate or have a stronger influence.

Lone. Exactly. And a very good point if true.

But for me the issue is not are we having global warming or for that matter, global cooling.
It is, are we having climate change?

Soot causing the polar caps to melt. Does it matter?
The polar ice caps are MELTING.

Either we are in serious environmental decay or we are not.

Originally posted by Flyzoid
Obviously that ice didn't melt during the last warming period.

Why wouldnt the ice have melted?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Because comparing the size/mass of the sun to the size/mass of all humanity, as the OP does, does not correlate. Saying the sun is bigger than all people collected doesn't address the theory that human-induced carbon emission are to blame for alleged warming trends. It is a conflation.

We are faced with two sides of a Discussion. One says global warming and climate are caused by the Sun and Cosmic Events. The other says that global warming and climate are caused by Humans. There is nothing complex about that, thats the status of the Debate.