Australia suffers most extreme warming

After the Asteroid impacted it threw up so much dust and debris that the Earth was plunged into an extremely long period of extremely cold temps as the debris and dust cloud blotted out the sun for centuries.

This brought down Earths average temp. by a great deal and Earth has not obtained such temps ever after that event.

As far as the Asteroid Impact still being a theory....NO. A world wide layer of Iridium and Micro Diamonds and Carbonized Dust is proof positive along with ocean floor core samples at the impact site.

As far as your argument that because in the past temps were higher this could somehow mean that after 8000,000 years of core sample data we can verify Global Warming to be a FACT as well as a very big problem but that this does not verify that Global Warming is Man Made...well....in order to prove your assertion or even make it an assertion that could be considered you would have to offer some alternate explanation for exactly WHY are CO2 Levels higher and increasing.

So....explain exactly how they are higher and increasing.

AboveAlpha

 

One more thing....since the Military Industrial Complex stands to loose BILLIONS of Dollars by being forced to install CO2 Scrubbers on all Factory and Plant Exhaust Stacks....which in turn would raise the prices of DOD selected for purchase Defense Systems....the Military has ZERO UPSIDE to detail reports that Global Warming is in fact Man Made.

AboveAlpha

 

That is the theory but the evidence is in question due to the fact that nobody can confirm that the evidence supplied is of the same asteroid impact. That is the assumption you make from the evidence provided.

Again the earth has been impacted by many foreign bodies in the past. The asteroid impact you discuss is not theory, the previous of what occurred from that impact is.

It is interesting that you want to use 800,000 years of CO2 data as the temperature data is only good for 450,000 years. So what is my assertion??? As there are many natural forces that drive CO2 emissions and what exact correlation CO2 has to temperature is something that needs to be answered. As stated you are assuming something as a given rather than including it in your assessment. There is a theory that correlates CO2 rise with halting of increasing temperatures so as temperatures rise the CO2 rises being naturally released. The theory of Manmade global warming to work it has to work out exactly where the heat is coming from.

As your Asteroid example theorises that heat was blocked FROM OUT SIDE the planets biosphere reducing temperatures and CO2 has the ability to block such, don't you think it will work both ways??? However, simplistic that sounds it does show major flaws in the theory that are simply given by the proponents of manmade global warming.

To do that you would have to accept and explain the correlation of CO2 to temperature, as seems to be a given without evidence. BUT the fact that in sixteen years there has been no significant increase in temperature while CO2 has been increasing, I would suggest there is a flaw in your theory.

 

Timeline of glaciation
From Wikipedia

There have been 5 recorded Ice Ages, with 2 being severe and referred to as 'Snowball Earth,' that have followed and lagged earth's 'hot periods.'

It would seem to be that the earth has a propensity for periodic Ice Ages leading to extinctions & replenishments more so than Global warming being a threat to life on the earth. Would this be earth's regulation by natural processes (surface & internal) and thus compensating for extra-terrestrial events as well? Is in fact Global Warming a natural process & a boon to the earth in general?

 

This post of yours is a JOKE...right?

I mean you cannot seriously be claiming that a rise in Temps would dictate increases or decreases in CO2....could you?

If you are seriously proposing that then you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT CHEMISTRY OR THIS ISSUE!

As well your assertion about there being a question due to what you call a STATED FACT that that nobody can confirm that the evidence supplied is of the same asteroid impact....is beyond ridiculous!

I will tell you what.....provide just one viable link to a site that even details anything about CO2 increases due to average mean Atmospheric Temp. increase and I will eat my hat!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Look above, do you want salt with that hat???

 

If you are talking about that posted chart it does NOT answer the question or provide any answer to my challenge.

I asked you to provide a link to a viable site that would detail or show or provide proof that increases in Global Average Temps. are the cause of increases in CO2.

Try again.

AboveAlpha

 

"They" haven't excluded that information - but to know that you would have to do some research

Here is the link to the IPCC's chapter on paleoclimatology http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html

Milankovitch cycles - it is google-able

Scientists HAVE investigated this and there ARE answers

.

Again there is information to the questions you ask

Well, if someone does not know the basics of the influence of the moon……….

 

I would like to add that the Earth's core is slowly cooling and because of this we do not experience anywhere near the amount or number of volcanic eruptions as we did in the distant past.

Volcanic eruptions in mass were responsible for many CO2 spikes millions of years ago but as the Earth's core cools and the Earth's crust get's thicker Tectonic Plate Movement slows and eruptions become a rare event.

What is at issue and is the problem as another member stated is the RATE at which CO2 levels are rising and the rate of Global Warming and the rate of Polar Ice Melt.

These extreme rate increases are greater and happening faster than at any time in the past 69 Million Years ago Asteroid Impact and Global Long Term Freeze Over.

There is only one possible reason for this...Man Made CO2 emissions.

Remember when we had a huge hole in our Ozone Layer and scientists figured out that the propellants we were using in can's of Hair Spray and Paint Can was the cause but some people fought tooth and nail to say that was not possible?

Then we stopped using such propellants and what happened?

The OZONE REPLENISHED ITSELF!!!

Same B.S. is happening with those who will not admit the facts that Global Warming is Man Made.

AboveAlpha

 

OH I am sorry, I did read that wrong. BUT the very fact that it is your who is assuming that CO2 is the driver of temperature I think it should be you who provides the said proof of the correlation of CO2 and temperature. After all that is my question and you have decided that if I cannot provide it then you must be right... Sorry, does not work like that. After all it is you who decided I am ignorant of this issue, and that the military are the deciders of the science…

 

So there you go.

AboveAlpha

If you had any education or knowledge specific to CHEMISTRY you would know the reason why CO2 traps heat.

CO2 sticks around. CO2 remains in the atmosphere longer than the other major heat-trapping gases emitted as a result of human activities. It takes about a decade for methane (CH4) emissions to leave the atmosphere (it converts into CO2) and about a century for nitrous oxide (N2O).[3] In the case of CO2, much of today’s emissions will be gone in a century, but about 20 percent will still exist in the atmosphere approximately 800 years from now.[3] This literally means that the heat-trapping emissions we release today from our cars and power plants are setting the climate our children and grandchildren will inherit. CO2’s long life in the atmosphere provides the clearest possible rationale for reducing our CO2 emissions without delay.

What about water vapor? Water vapor is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, but rarely discussed when considering human-induced climate change. The principal reason is that water vapor has a short cycle in the atmosphere (a few days) before it is incorporated into weather events and falls to Earth, so it cannot build up in the atmosphere in the same way as carbon dioxide does.[1, 2]

Too Much of a Good Thing: The Carbon Overload

Earth receives energy that travels from the sun in a variety of wavelengths, some of which we see as sunlight and others that are invisible to the naked eye, such as shorter- wavelength ultraviolet radiation and longer-wavelength infrared radiation. As this energy passes through Earth’s atmosphere, some is reflected back into space by clouds and small particles such as sulfates; some is reflected by Earth’s surface; and some is absorbed into the atmosphere by substances such as soot, stratospheric ozone, and water vapor (see Figure 2 for relative proportions).[4] The remaining solar energy is absorbed by the earth itself, warming the planet’s surface.





(click image to enlarge) The molecules depicted in the inset box represent heat-trapping gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide. The number of incoming and outgoing arrows are proportional to the balance between incoming and outgoing energy.[2] Data source: IPCC 2007; Figure: Union of Concerned Scientists.

If all of the energy emitted from the Earth’s surface escaped into space, the planet would be too cold to sustain human life. Fortunately, as depicted in Figure 2, some of this energy does stay in the atmosphere, where it is sent back toward Earth by clouds, released by clouds as they condense to form rain or snow, or absorbed by atmospheric gases composed of three or more atoms, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4).

Long-wave radiation absorbed by these gases in turn is re-emitted in all directions, including back toward Earth, and some of this re-emitted energy is absorbed again by these gases and re-emitted in all directions. The net effect is that most of the outgoing radiation is kept within the atmosphere instead of escaping into space. Heat-trapping gases, in balanced proportions, act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping temperatures within a range that enables life to thrive on a planet with liquid water. Unfortunately, these gases—especially carbon dioxide—are accumulating in the atmosphere at increasing concentrations due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuel in cars and power plants, the clearing of forests for agriculture or development, and agricultural practices.[4] As a result, the insulating blanket is getting too thick and overheating the Earth as less energy (heat) escapes into space.

 

So why is the core cooling??? Ever wondered what is happening if the core of the planet is cooling???

Yes it does seem to be a problem, but it does not mean it is necessarily MAN.

Got evidence of this claim??? I think you will struggle over that period of time.

When the thermohaline Currents halt and bring on an Ice age (as theorised) how fast do you think that happens??? The only possible reason for this to be manmade CO2 emissions is because you simply believe the mantra.

So tell me, is that hole GONE???

Your joking aren't you???

http://www.theozonehole.com/

Even those sceintist do not believe man CAUSED the ozone holes they beleived MAN contributed to them.

From the same link

SO apparently the Ozone hole still exists and will continue too due to natural forces.

Admitting the fact is easy if you have them, but you continue to assume much as simply given without facts.

 

You should provide links or citation when posting such... However, this in no way provides the correlation you state. The fact it uses reference to the IPCC as scientific citation is also demeaning to the article provided.

 

Read the report and tell me where it states that the hypothesis of thermohaline ocean circulation is not supported by the actual observations. Explain that while modelling it has been decided that to find out what effect the currents have is by removing them from the model and examining the difference rather than comparing them to actual observations due to the fact modelling is not producing the outcome they predicate with them in...

Eh do you consider that answers the question that one asteroid hit is the answer to all??? No, this discusses the THEORY of the earth’s movements and attitude that effects climate... Funny thing is that it is totally different.

Yes, there are... BUT the answers we have now are simply theories not fact.

.

Of course there is we just don't have them.

That is interesting, how did the moon become involved with this discussion??? As the natural cycles of the moon are natural I am not sure how that would prove that global warming is manmade. Fact is that the moon at present is moving away from earth, so wouldn’t one consider that while the MOON is moving away from earth different climatic conditions will occur???

For somebody who supposedly knows so much about the climate I would have considered that asteroid hits on earth are not supported by Milankovitch theory which describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate. A little strange that.

 

What did your last slave die of?

I found at least one reference - one that discounted your contention that "Scientists have included the details you have been claiming they have been omitting but instead of investigating for yourself I am faced with further DEMANDS that I research more and more information. Information that I KNOW will be rejected out of hand. See the thing is those of us who do believe what the scientists are saying - we do not have to work that hard to prove the point. We are not actually out to convince YOU. We are posting for the other members, the ones who are not really committed to full on denialism the ones who can and will compare responses on the board.

Think of this for a minute - if you were walking through "speakers corner" in Hyde Park and there was a speaker talking quietly and calmly about an issue, a speaker who has obviously researched facts, has evidence of what they say and is simply putting forward an idea and on the other side of the path there is someone shouting and ranting waving fists in the air while spittle comes out of his mouth - well the raving loony might have more audience but the calm speaker is going to convince more people.

Asking if the scientists have taken the fact the moon is moving away from the Earth into account in climate simulations is the internet equivalent of attributing all evil to little green men

 

You made the claim so it is not my burden to prove Your claim.

Well let us see it??? So far you have not provided anything to dispute my statement that the IPCC included a series of data that is nothing but hypothesis and not explained that the modelling is opposed to actual observations. So no nothing has been provided to refute my statement, simply pretending that is the case.

What a load, Obviously those who supposedly believe the science wants to talk to other likeminded people because they cannot justify their claims.

Believing the science is the problem, as the science in this entire issue is not settled and notably omissions are made. As to the Thermohaline Currents where the only way they can model the effects are to remove them from the model and compare the difference. As previously posted on this thread, BUT the IPCC does not recognise the very fact that actual observations are in direct contravention of the theories and hypothesis. IF people who really believed the science they would be aware that in the seventies the driving force for the ice age theory was the Thermohaline Currents as they have been slowing since before them. The theory (well established but refuted by the current AGW theories) that once these currents stop an ice age will occur... If they are slowing NOW then I would consider that runaway warming is not going to be the issue. BUT hey they believe the science but also discount the fact that one of the major drivers of climate have been ignored until the last IPCC report and then misrepresented by omitting the fact of actual observations.

The problem the proponents of Manmade global warming have is the SO CALLED FACTS being researched. After all I have seen some extreme claims made of science as such. The science is in... Majority of science agree global warming is manmade... Nothing is omitted for the details... All modelling shows... All which is bogus. The science is not in as scientist still do not really know what drives the climate they are still surmising. Majority of scientist do not say man is causing global warming they either say man is LIKELY... As pointed out the science of IPCC ignored one major contributor to climate movement around the planet until the last report and then use a theory that is completely opposite to the current observations, without reporting the reality of HOW they use them. Are you aware that CSIRO has many models and only 2 of those models matched the claims of the IPCC??? They model the region on 16 models and only 2 show the proclamations of the IPCC. SO you guess it they went with only those 2 models. Believe the science??? No, people just believe what has been told to them and made hay with the facts.

I did not ask if scientists have taken anything into account, I asked you. As the challenge of Asteroid strike on the planet was struck down by not taking into account with the movement and attitude of the earth and the final comment let me get this right "Well, if someone does not know the basics of the influence of the moon………." As the moon was not mentioned in any form or eluded too in any way, I would assume that the person making the comment is simply out to troll something they obviously have very little credibility to comment on. Further detracting from their credibility.

 

Lovely pictures, Maybe you could explain how these demonstrate a corrolation. Oh an don't use the idea that because one follows the other it must be a corrolation as this current hyadis of temperature demonstrates that while CO2 continues to rise the temperature has remained reasonably stable. Also previously to 450,000 Temperature had little to no match to temperature movement.

Now I know this is simply a opinion peice but as the pretty picture are similar to these I think it better to look at them as well

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/





We can all do that...

 

Isn't this fun

 

There is no "burden of proof" I rebutted a claim of yours - which was unsubstantiated

So far you have been relegated to "don't bother reading past the first line" keep it up and you will return to my R&R list (Review and report all infractions)

 

That is interesting...

Is rebuttal??? As it is more to insult I would still consider burden of proof does not belong to me...

 

Never said "Cos it does". I said there are many, many factors that influence climate. To say the climate doesn't change by itself is just a meaningless straw man, a miss direction. The 'climate' has never been unchanging. Perhaps you could define what you mean by 'climate' and then tell us what are the changes and why those changes, if there are any, are not within natural variables and what is the proof that those changes are solely due to a bit of extra co2 in the atmosphere. We know the temperature on earth has been several degrees warmer and cooler in the last thousand years but according to the alarmists the co2 levels have been pretty much the same all through that time. We have seen warming and cooling in the last hundred years, I know there is a very small upward trend which alarmists make look dramatic by manipulating the ranges on their graphs but there is no proof that this slight warming is not caused mainly by natural forces has as been the case in the past. I will say it again because I know you can't say it without choking on the words, the climate has never been unchanging.

 

And I, nor any climate scientist has EVER claimed it has not changed in the past. In fact as I linked earlier in this thread the IPCC has a whole report on the past changes
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html

relationship between past CO2 levels and temperature
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3.html#6-3-1

as for proof

http://www.nature.com/news/at-least-three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

When you consider the buffering effect of vegetation of heat at the surface of the earth (tends to cool) and the fact that vegetation (particularly trees) take water from below the ground and release it into the atmosphere just deforestation by itself would have some effect.

That is why we have "urban heat islands" .... and even "urban heat islands" by themselves would give evidence that man can indeed effect climate.

- - - Updated - - -

When you consider the buffering effect of vegetation of heat at the surface of the earth (tends to cool) and the fact that vegetation (particularly trees) take water from below the ground and release it into the atmosphere just deforestation by itself would have some effect.

That is why we have "urban heat islands" .... and even "urban heat islands" by themselves would give evidence that man can indeed effect climate.

 

Every time I hear these people with a “chicken little” mentality running around ranting that humans are creating climate change, I simply laugh my head off at them.

I keep thinking, that if the people who really know what’s happening, think this is such a massively serious problem, they would be doing more than creating a carbon tax pyramid scheme on the stock exchange to STOP it.

How much more obvious does this have to be, before dumbarses realise this climate scam is all about money? Remember the eco-light bulbs that is full of toxic murcury filling our rubbish dumps and the murcury is now leaching into our land fill and water supplies, because there are NO recycling centres to extract the mercury from the eco-globes. Poisioning our land and water with toxic murcury to save 0.0001 power on light globes.

This climate change snow-job is right up there with the African inter-net dating scams.

How many more idiots are going to fall sucker for this scam? LOL