59 share
reader interest - high
During
the last 2.6 million years or so in the Quaternary period,
ice ages, also called glacial ages, were times of extreme cooling of the
Earth's climate where
ice sheets and other types of glacier expanded
to cover large areas of land. Between ice ages there
were warmer interglacial periods and we are now living during such a time.reader interest - high
There
have been many ice ages during the last
2.6 million years but when people talk about the Ice Age, they are
often referring to the most recent glacial period, which peaked about 21,000
years ago and ended about 11,500 years ago.
What
causes ice ages is not completely understood. The composition of the atmosphere,
changes in the position of our planet around the Sun,
and changes in ocean currents are
some of the important factors that control the climate. Source of quote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/water_and_ice/ice_age
NASA tells us there have been \7 warming/cooling (as in "ice age") cycles in the past 650,000 year alone, the last ending some "7,000 year ago." I assume this coincides with the 11,000 number mentioned in the BBC article. Just know that climate data is all over the map - very few issues involved with charting data, include seriously consistent presentations.
NASA tells us there have been \7 warming/cooling (as in "ice age") cycles in the past 650,000 year alone, the last ending some "7,000 year ago." I assume this coincides with the 11,000 number mentioned in the BBC article. Just know that climate data is all over the map - very few issues involved with charting data, include seriously consistent presentations.
Editor’s notes:
And none of the related causes referenced above, include man to any significant degree, with the possible except of present time . . . .
and there is no reason to believe that this cycle is the last in Earth’s
history.
You
should understand that when the author(s) states, “What causes ice ages is not completely understood,” it is meant to imply that causation for these
epic warming/cooling periods, does not fit into any of the mathematical models of today’s
Utopian/Hysterical Scientific theories
- and there is more than one
model for disaster.
Also, no one is talking about the fact that the same warming trends are occurring elsewhere in our solar system. Why? Because this information complicates the issue, not to mention the hysterical claims of the Alarmists. Nor, do they mention that "global warming" is actually, regional warming. Not all 7 of the world's geo-regions are warming or cooling at the same rates, if at all.
Look, if 5 of the 7 regions in this world hold normal averages for a particular year, a 6th shows a 1 degree drop in mean temp average, and the 7th shows a 3 degree increase in mean temps, if you average them together, you come up with "global warming," when, in fact, only one region is actually problematic.
 |
| #1 |
Am I saying that this is the case? Not at all, but I am saying, this is how easily "averages" can be used to deceive.
I give you three charts: #1 shows warming/cooling trends as charted our weather satellite data -
And the second (#2) shows the annual temps for the years before and after 1998. As you can see with only two years of warming since 1998.
The third (#3) chart, includes the same period of time in #2, but with no averages as high as 1998, proving that there is not the consistency of data, the Alarmist would have us believe - both #2 and 3 come from the Alarmist camp.
Note: Click on images to enlarge.
 |
| #2 |
 |
| #3 |
The third (#3) chart, includes the same period of time in #2, but with no averages as high as 1998, proving that there is not the consistency of data, the Alarmist would have us believe - both #2 and 3 come from the Alarmist camp.
Note: Click on images to enlarge.
Unbelievable.... he just doesn't get it. Choosing any single year as a starting point for a denialist graph is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data and taking a long view. Case in point... All of Smithson's graphs are tiny specks in time, cherry picked and too small to show a meaningful climate trend, they are meaningless to anyone who is remotely scientifically minded... or even moderately intelligent
ReplyDeleteOf course the climate is always changing... 15,000 yrs ago, NYC was under a mile of ice. Human civilization has changed massively in just 200 yrs. We have affected the climate undoubtedly and there will be no simple way to reverse this trend in our lifetimes. The climate is fragile and can be affected by many natural forces, most drastically by vulcanism and impact. Mankind's affect is not a natural force. Human civilization has been allowed to develop exponentially for the last 200 yrs in a relatively stable climate. Not anymore. Sea level rise will displace millions by the end of the century. Personally, I am not alarmed, nor concerned, but not ignorant and blind to the facts.
It's really a bitch when your political ideology constricts your ability to reason.
My charts come from PRO-climate fantasy sites. They are no more "specks of time" than what you have. Its my specks versus your specks, and the good book tells us to, first, take the speck out of our eye.
DeleteAnd your thinking that the "climate is fragile" is sheer propaganda. Nonsense, plain and simple. Weather is weather. "Fragile" has nothing to do with it. Nothing in our world is "sustainable" over time. It is all vanishing, all decomposing. And it is the way the system was made to work.
You state that you are not "alarmed or concerned," laughable BS. You Utopians are scared shitless that this system is not going to last forever, thus your history of moving from one environmental disaster to another. It never stops with you people . . . . acid rain, the hunger bomb, the mini ice age, the ozone nonsense, your war against fossil fuel -- hell, panic and fear drives your campaign against the working man. What a freaking joke you Utopians have become.
Sea levels by the end of the century? What happened to "NY City under 20 feet of water by 2015" or "Katrina, the beginning of a global warming onslaught that will see 15 or more major hurricanes, each year until we become responsible citizens of this earth?"
You don't care for my government generated charts? Fine - just know that you sound like a moron in those rejections and THAT is why you are loosing the argument . . . . because you sound like a panic striken whack job with years of failed predictions and phony environmental crisis.
You have a hundred year chart showing global warming year after year? And a 100 year period is not a "speck" measured against 2.6 million freaking years?? Interesting.
DeleteUtopian military? There are lots of Progressive/Utopian types in the military. They are everywhere. like maggots, turning war into an extension of fairness to the "other side" (previously known as the "enemy"); that is how Utopian folks wage war. And the Utopian "rules of engagement" specifically put our soldiers at risk BEFORE the lives of our enemies or the civilian population that aids and supports that enemy. The ban on pre-emptive strikes is more of what I am talking about. And our commanders in the field know that soldiers are at risk but will not stand up and fight on their behalf.
You talk about the last major extinction -- 58 million years ago. Kind of proves my point -- man was not around, back then, of course, yet we have this climate caused (?) "major extinction." And the rate of increase you talk about, today, apparently you are not well read, enough, to know that the increase in the warming rate, began less than 100 years ago (a speak of time compared to 2.6 million years), and does not allow for the rate change beginning 1999. So what do we do with the last 16 years, Slick? Just ignore it? Pretend it did not and is not happening.
Why the 13 year effort of climate scientists to alter climate data to fit their existing models? Let's talk about the capacity to understand, shall we? When folks take an entire decade to lie about a given theory, generally that means their theory is crap. Clearly, you cannot grasp that fact, so you go from one environmental crisis to another, never admitting you or your side was wrong - just grabbing headlines and paying yourselves handsomely, in so doing.
And here is where I finally get personal . . . and I am better at this than you can imagine. I am tired of your pettiness and immaturity as a polemic champion (you have a dictionary; look those words up or ask someone in your family). You are nothing but a self serving One Percenter, the top of the socialist economic food chain, begrudging others the same rewards given to you, while you approve of one tax after another on the every day, Joe Blow, as long as it does not effect your bitchen lifestyle. Your are the kind of uppity snob plain old folks hate - and you are one of the easiest debate opponents I have ever dealt with. It is almost humorous to read the responses to our debate.
You fail to deal with 95% of my argument and think the reader does not notice. Your live your skinny ass lifestyle, banging your girlfriend or whatever, until she no longer serves your purposes, while pretending that you "know" what you cannot prove. You flunked Personal Faith 101 and now believe that God is a joke and believers are the Unreal Ones. You are an absolute fool.
One more thing: What is missing from your intellectual arsenal is the ability to ask critical questions about your own position, coupled with your inability to sort out the truth via the dialectic. You simply do not know how to critique your own argumentation, and if you know, then you are too damn lazy to do it. So you believe what you read or been taught, like a good little boy, and away you go. Your approach to "truth," therefore, is as anti-intellectual as you can get.
DeleteWow. Don't let the guy get under your skin. I enjoy the debate, and for the most part, you have stayed above his little insults. My family and I like your thinking and your occasional comments on your faith, they make a lot of sense. We are guessing that if you are an evangelical, you have had to dodge a lot of bullets. But, I have never been that good reading between the lines.
DeleteI said "no global warming for the past 16 years." I did not say "No global warming." Like I said in my previous response, you have no clue how to think critically. You buy into what your mentors tell you to believe, and that's about it. 30% of all climate scientists do not believe the warming trends are dangerous at current rates of increases. And, yes, the industrial world outside our borders is all Progressive/Socialists. They have run out of money and need the loot global warming Panic Science promises to supply - or maybe my opponent has not been paying attention to what is happening in Europe over the past several years. Creating a panic over global warming gives the Socialist pigs of this world the ammo they need to collect taxes and spend it on their pet projects. Remember when this all started? They were going take "donations," plant and grow trees and deal with the problem in that fashion. What a bunch of morons. You could buy into this scam and save the planet. THAT, my friends, is the kind of intelligence with which we are dealing.
DeleteScience and truth? Well, science is all about politics, in this case, and truth has been sequestered for the sake of silencing all opposition speech. Do you all love these New Age Commies?
Thanks for clarifying your opinion.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, your contention is that world leading climate labs in England, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, Canada, and the US are deliberately lying and working together to falsify data and create a "panic" because they are controlled by "socialist pigs" or "New Age commies" with the aim "to raise taxes and spend on pet projects." Further, you said, "science is all about politics".
Thanks again. Your readers can make their own judgements.
Just to be clear: I am saying that the Alarmists’ view of global warming is man made. I do not believe in consensus science, nor do I believe in a theory that cannot consistently predict outcomes. I know that consensus science has been wrong in the past, in my lifetime, on many occasions, in matters of the environment, health, economics and social/domestic structure. I know that alarmists padded the books for more than a decade, with that story breaking in 2009. I expect government generated warming charts to say the exact same thing when dealing with warming rates and historical evaluations, and they do not I know that 30% of climate scientists do not believe in the alarmists view of warming while believing that warming is happening. I do not believe that warming has occurred in 12 of the past 16 years. I believe that the current warming rates began near the turn of the 1900's, back in the day before we became an industrialized nation. I believe that warming is occurring throughout our solar system. I believe that warming, on our planet, is regiona, not global. I believe that Al Gore, is a moron, with no moral core. I believe that Central Planning pays its supporters and punishes its detractors, that the 70 percenters, those climate scientists who are Alarmists, are not free to challenge and are more motivated by the funding they receive than truth. And I believe that the 97% figure used to frame the faux unanimity within the warming community is a totally fabricated number, I believe that Alarmist Warming is a potential money pit for the Socialist Pigs who are running the industrialized world. And I believe that you have no sense for the dialectic pursuit of truth, that you gobble up what you read and pretend that process to be "critical thinking."
DeleteMy readers are typical to the national population, and have already made their feelings clear. Warming as a preventable event is in the hands of Mother Earth, not man; warming as a political priority is at the bottom of every list I seen over the course of the past five years, at least, in our country. Australia is abandoning "the cause" as are some of the nations in Europe . . . . . just to be clear.
I remember the days when "Challenge Authority" was a bumper sticker on every other car in any college town in America. The Pelosi crowd ALL loved the statement while proud bragging about being Marxists and anti-capitalist . . . . same bunch that is in power today . . . . same Marxists, same anti-capitalist. Most of them I know, are the One Percent or brain dead college types who believer everything they are taught, with any challenge at all.
Delete