And today we see more of the claims of Global warming, with little solid fact to back this stuff up. If we were to have jumped at such fear-mongering every time some group found a quick way to get notoriety, Where would we be today? Still living in caves?
So far we have heard that the Ice in Greenland was melting , although this was just in one area, and as always, it turned out to be volcanic in nature, having nothing to do with the weather. This was not the first time this has been seen, but shows excellently how the GW (Global Warming) proponents refuse to look at existing data before spouting their fear. In the sixties, it was found that the reason for the ice melts then, which started in the 50’s, was because of underground magma pools. These in Greenland come close to the surface, and cause the ground to “warm’, thus melt the ice. It is a common cycle in Greenland, and one the GW proponents don’t want you to know about.
Back in the 1200’s when the Vikings landed on Greenland (which was green with open pastures then) named it for the vast green fields they found. By the mid to late 1200’s, the ice from the Antarctic grew to encompass Greenland so that it became increasingly hard to get ships to the people. The settlers had to eventually pack up and sail out, or stay and fight the freezing weather. Those that stayed, vanished, so we have little clue what happened to them.
Now by the 1400’s one could easily sail around and even too Greenland, as all that ice melted, and not one country drowned because of it.
In fact land mass has had limited change throughout that whole time period, not near the amount of change the GW proponents would have you believe will happen now. In fact the ice melts and increases have had limited effect on the land mass throughout history. What has had an effect has been rain.
Yes even in the prehistoric times we now know there was rain, and in some periods, has had so much at times it has flooded vast amounts of land. Other times it has been so much to completely dry it out in to deserts, or very humid regions that supported tons of life.
So in effect, ice melts and increases have been a normal aspect of the life on Earth, not new, or even that destructive. We even know from ice cores that CO2 changes to an increased amount after a cold cycle, and not before one. Most of what you hear from the so called experts supporting GW, is known and does not support their claims, not even closely.
Loading ...
4 users commented in " Global Warming Anyone? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackDan, thanks so much for enlightening us. I’m sure you know way more than those experts at NASA, NOAA, EPA, UCAR and other orgs who have dedicated there life studying this. You are right these guys are dolts and hacks. Listen to yourself. This is what you are saying. These people are lying to get funding right. Study some more dude.
Where do I begin?
First of all the Greenland Ice sheet did not appear in the 1200’s. The Greenland Ice Core Project have used Greenland ice core samples to reconstruct a climate record – these samples go back 100,000s of years! The ice sheet has been there for all that time and in places is 3km deep!
I don’t know if you dreamt up the stuff about magma pools, but melting Greenland ice is not the only evidence of a warming climate. The instrument record, records of glacial length, sea temperature records, and records of the extent of sea ice all confirm that the climate has warming.
The glacial lag argument is a tired old and easily refuted argument. The 800 year lag between a glacial period ending and CO2 levels increasing is correct. However, glacial periods take at least 5000 years to end, so you can’t conclude therefore that greenhouse gases don’t contribute to the warming. All the glacial lag proves is that greenhouse gases don’t trigger the warming – but no-one ever claimed that CO2 did trigger the warming! The warming is triggered by cyclical variations in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles). A small change in Earth’s orbit changes the quantity of greenhouse gases, which them significantly amplify the initial warming. CO2 does absorb radiant heat - its basic physics, proven over 150 years ago.
“Co2 does absorb radiant heat-it’s basic physics, proven over 150 yers ago”
All the scientist(and you) need take a grade 8 refreasher course on the laws of Thermodynamics.
Paying especial attention to the second law that is only relevant in a closed system. The greenhouse effect is only observed in a closed system (a model) and if it worked the same in a open system (the earth, open to any elements as in the atmosphere or surrounding it) then the atmospheres temperature should be raising? Right?
Not much, it’s only gone up by .01% in the history of recording, doesn’t sound like much of a greenhouse effect to me?
Here’s a simple explanation in this link, how evaporation of the oceans and heating of the land is from the SUN and cause weather patterns and our seasons.
http://earthednet.org/Ocean_Materials/Mini_Studies/Atmos_Ocean_Interaction/Atmos_Ocean_Interaction.html
In a open system(earth), the sun(the heat) heats the surface of the globe . The ground and the oceans heat during the day light hours, the air next to it heat rises and the heat goes up into the atmosphere(the cold).
Some my accumulate lower as cloud cover and return as moisture(H2O) or frozen water somewhere else. The heat is gone in the night hours and the heat does not circulate and return. If it did? Then we would see a rapid increase in the atmospheres temperate which we don’t, it’s as low as a .01% rise.
And here lies the reason why science needs to be checked and rechecked for authenticity regularly. Checked for basic fundamental understanding, deductions/guesses and conclusions based on laws and presagers. It took century’s for theories or ideas to be excepted and most were dead before getting the credit disserved or giving someone else the idea and them taking it one step forward in it’s fruition as a of law in science or a hypotheses for another scientists to take the reins and prove or disprove a idea.
Not even knowing( I assume?) that the theory you are espousing is against the laws of ALL know science? Then you better have a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back up your bullsheet. And if you need to fight in court to get the actual modeling program to prove it right or wrong from a highly most trusted source prove the next apocalypse? Meh!
This kind of junk science is cancer and is corrupted by the anti human/eugenics idea of our sin of over crowding and self destruction/mutilation on the planet for greed. Mostly directed at the west, but we are all to controlled already to go out pollute or cause destruction to our planet without repercussion.
I live where all our power is clean hydroelectric, we are lucky and have large amounts of runoff. But we used coal back years ago and that’s what built us before the dams. So why shouldn’t Africa get to use coal power they have as a people? Don’t poor countries get to use the SAME power we used in older times? And if you think no? Then lets build 30 or so nuclear plants. It’s in almost every county as I type this and some countries are almost ALL nuclear. Lots in the USA, Canada, China, Europe, etc.
So why don’t we allow people who are struggling and need the technology to generator power from whatever source we used in the past to give then simple basis things we take for granted … like life and a future?
“Not much, it’s only gone up by .01% in the history of recording, doesn’t sound like much of a greenhouse effect to me?”
The only thing of any substance in your comment is the above. However, it is hard to respond since you don’t identify the period of ‘history’ in which temperatures have “gone up by 0.01%”. The global surfaccr air temperature record for the 20th C shows an increase of 0.6C, half of the waming occurring the past 25 years (Dessler and Parsons 2006). It just does square with your numbers.
I would like to know how Africa is prevented from using its coal power. Developing countries are exempt from Kyoto etc. They don’t use the their reserves (if they have any) because they don’t have the economy and infrastructure, not because they are prevented from doing so.
Leave A Reply