Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,325

    Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?

    Maybe it is a cycle?

    [QUOTE][B]Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study
    [/B]

    [LIST][*] [B]Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures[/B][*][B]Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe[/B][*][B]Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'
    [/B][/LIST]
    By [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Ted+Thornhill"]Ted Thornhill[/URL]
    [B]PUBLISHED:[/B] 07:21 EST, 26 March 2012 | [B]UPDATED:[/B] 07:55 EST, 26 March 2012

    Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.
    It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

    [B]A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.[/B]

    [B]In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.[/B]

    At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe – therefore that the warming we’re experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon.

    However, Professor Lu has shown that this isn’t true – and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.

    ‘Ikaite is an icy version of limestone,’ said Lu. ‘The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature.’

    It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together - called the hydration water - traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.

    This finding by Lu's research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable way to study past climate conditions.

    The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years.

    The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the ‘Little Ice Age,’ approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it.

    Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.

    Lu’s team found that in fact, they did.

    They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals.

    During cool periods there are lots, during warm periods there aren’t.

    ‘We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,’ Lu says. ‘More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.’

    The research was recently published online in the journal Earth And Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print on April 1. [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=Trades;4417318]Maybe it is a cycle?[/QUOTE]

    Ice age, global freezing, alien Exxon blasts the earth with big suv's causes massive earth melting!!!!!!! Where was Al Gore when 3 billion Eskimos that inhabited the earth need him???? Oh the humanity!!!!!!!

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    No.

    Both sides of the argument continue to make the same mistakes.

    If true, this proves only that it is [I]possible[/I] that heating cycles can occur without human intervention/emissions.

    It does not however, provide any evidence that this heating cycle, the one we're currently in, is not due to human intervention.

    Just as there currently isn't solid, concrete scientific evidence that it is.

    Although it strengthens one case, it certainly doesn't [I]prove[/I] anything.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4417471]No.

    Both sides of the argument continue to make the same mistakes.

    If true, this proves only that it is [I]possible[/I] that heating cycles can occur without human intervention/emissions.

    It does not however, provide any evidence that this heating cycle, the one we're currently in, is not due to human intervention.

    Just as there currently isn't solid, concrete scientific evidence that it is.

    Although it strengthens one case, it certainly doesn't [I]prove[/I] anything.[/QUOTE]

    It also doesn't address the issue of how much we are impacting the cycle. Nothing in that article suggest man hasn't had a very real negative impact on warming.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4417471]No.

    Both sides of the argument continue to make the same mistakes.

    If true, this proves only that it is possible that heating cycles can occur without human intervention/emissions.

    It does not however, provide any evidence that this heating cycle, the one we're currently in, is not due to human intervention.

    Just as there currently isn't solid, concrete scientific evidence that it is.

    Although it strengthens one case, it certainly doesn't prove anything. [/QUOTE]

    Brilliantly said.

    In hindsight, no correction needed. Well said.
    Last edited by Warfish; 03-26-2012 at 02:19 PM.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4417482]It also doesn't address the issue of how much we are impacting the cycle. Nothing in that article suggest man hasn't had a very real negative impact on warming.[/QUOTE]

    And nothing exists that proves that we do, either.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4417471]No.

    Both sides of the argument continue to make the same mistakes.

    If true, this proves only that it is [I]possible[/I] that heating cycles can occur without human intervention/emissions.

    It does not however, provide any evidence that this heating cycle, the one we're currently in, is not due to human intervention.

    Just as there currently isn't solid, concrete scientific evidence that it is.

    Although it strengthens one case, it certainly doesn't [I]prove[/I] anything.[/QUOTE]

    +1

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4417704]And nothing exists that proves that we do, either.[/QUOTE]

    There's plenty of evidence that buring fossil fuels destroys our environment. Just moving it destroy's our environment.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4417778]There's plenty of evidence that buring fossil fuels destroys our environment. Just moving it destroy's our environment.[/QUOTE]

    That isn't what we're discussing (but you probably know that). It isn't even close to addressing the issue at hand. But exactly what we get in this endless discussion, day in and day out.

    Predictable. And annoying.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    What I never understood is, regardless of whether or not Global Warming is man made or a natural cycle, we all agree that the Earth is getting hotter and we all agree that fossil fuels are finite and in higher demand than ever before considering India and China's modernization.

    Why would we not, as a country, spend money to find the next energy source? Why are we not convening a second Manhattan Project, this time with the goal of finding what will next power this economy in the 21st century and beyond?

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,325
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4417800]What I never understood is, regardless of whether or not Global Warming is man made or a natural cycle, we all agree that the Earth is getting hotter and we all agree that fossil fuels are finite and in higher demand than ever before considering India and China's modernization.

    Why would we not, as a country, spend money to find the next energy source? Why are we not convening a second Manhattan Project, this time with the goal of finding what will next power this economy in the 21st century and beyond?[/QUOTE]

    Many of us don't feel that the government is capable of or should be doing that research. We (the government) are out of money. Private industry is already doing the research and making strides. As fossil fuels become more expensive and alternate fuels become more profitable even more innovation will be seen. If you want to start an X-Prize type motivator then I might be on board otherwise we need less spending and government intervention not more.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4417798]That isn't what we're discussing (but you probably know that). It isn't even close to addressing the issue at hand. But exactly what we get in this endless discussion, day in and day out.

    Predictable. And annoying.[/QUOTE]

    The scientific communities with few exceptions are certain that fossil fuels are having an impact on global warming. The fact that we ignore its impact on the general environment is also politically motivated.

    Denial is not the same thing as a cost/benifit dicussion which can't happen here. Sorry you're annoyed.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4417826]The scientific communities with few exceptions are certain that fossil fuels are having an impact on global warming. [/QUOTE]

    Again, not the issue. The issue is to what extent. If you believe that a huge majority of the scientific community believe that man is the primary (or even a major) factor in global warming, you are either misinformed, or you are willingly lying.

    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4417826]
    The fact that we ignore its impact on the general environment is also politically motivated. [/QUOTE]

    It isn't ignored. It's lied about. On both sides.

    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4417826]
    Denial is not the same thing as a cost/benifit dicussion which can't happen here. Sorry you're annoyed.[/QUOTE]

    It's annoying because you keep straying off of topic. Saying "fossil fuels have a negative impact on the environment" is a broad statement that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not [I]man has a significant impact on temperature change that can not be reversed by the planet's normal cycles[/I], which have been going on for billions of years before we ever showed up here.

    The way people cite "science" these days is a vomit-inducing disgrace to actual scientists, like myself and the ones I work with every day. With few exceptions.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,975
    It doesn't prove anything for either side.

    If wildfires occur naturally, does that mean they cannot be started by man? Contrapositively, if they can be started by man, does that mean they can't occur naturally?

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=parafly;4417979]It doesn't prove anything for either side.

    If wildfires occur naturally, does that mean they cannot be started by man? Contrapositively, if they can be started by man, does that mean they can't occur naturally?[/QUOTE]

    A very good analogy.

    An doubly apt one too, given forest fires contribute to CO2 emissions.;)

    An great example of the affirming the consequent/denying the antecedent logical fallacy, as well as deductive fallacy.
    Last edited by Warfish; 03-26-2012 at 03:59 PM.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4417989]A very good analogy.

    An doubly apt one too, given forest fires contribute to CO2 emissions.;)

    An great example of the affirming the consequent/denying the antecedent logical fallacy, as well as deductive fallacy.[/QUOTE]

    Did you know that burning a tree produces no more carbon dioxide than it would produce naturally after it dies and biogrades? :D

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,975
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4418007]Did you know that burning a tree produces no more carbon dioxide than it would produce naturally after it dies and biogrades? :D[/QUOTE]

    But it does decrease the amount of CO2 the tree would remove from the atmosphere during its life span.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4417849]Again, not the issue. The issue is to what extent. If you believe that a huge majority of the scientific community believe that man is the primary (or even a major) factor in global warming, you are either misinformed, or you are willingly lying.



    It isn't ignored. It's lied about. On both sides.



    It's annoying because you keep straying off of topic. Saying "fossil fuels have a negative impact on the environment" is a broad statement that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not [I]man has a [B]significant impact [/B]on temperature change that can not be reversed by the planet's normal cycles[/I], which have been going on for billions of years before we ever showed up here.

    The way people cite "science" these days is a vomit-inducing disgrace to actual scientists, like myself and the ones I work with every day. With few exceptions.[/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely correct. Let me say it clearly. For me it doesn't matter if we are causing global warming or not. There are dozens of reasons we have to reduce our use of fossil fuels and use alternate energy sources. Whether or not the scientific community has come up with enough data to suggest or not suggest that man has a significant impact on global warming is almost a side show to the debate regarding the reduction of the use of fossil fuels.

    Regardless of scientific evidence the country should be moving away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources as quickly as possible. Science and innovation is probably the best way forward.

    I have no clue if we are or arenít causing the earth to warm, I suspect we are having a significant impact but even if we arenít there are enough other reasons to move away from them and the debate should be about affordability not whether or not we should do it.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,246
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4417849]Again, not the issue. The issue is to what extent. If you believe that a huge majority of the scientific community believe that man is the primary (or even a major) factor in global warming, you are either misinformed, or you are willingly lying.



    It isn't ignored. It's lied about. On both sides.



    It's annoying because you keep straying off of topic. Saying "fossil fuels have a negative impact on the environment" is a broad statement that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not [I]man has a significant impact on temperature change that can not be reversed by the planet's normal cycles[/I], which have been going on for billions of years before we ever showed up here.

    [B]The way people cite "science" these days is a vomit-inducing disgrace to actual scientists, like myself and the ones I work with every day. With few exceptions[/B].[/QUOTE]


    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UoO3EFHj5k[/url]


    :D

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4418040]
    I have no clue if we are or arenít causing the earth to warm, I suspect we are having a significant impact but even if we arenít there are enough other reasons to move away from them and the debate should be about affordability not whether or not we should do it.[/QUOTE]

    Shouldn't there also be a debate about how much the gov't should "force" its agenda on a captive public?

    They say corn is the next energy source, so they start devoting farm land to it. Turns out it causes more harm than good, and made the price of food go up to boot.

    They say electric cars are the answer, but people have to pay more to own one. They then have to use taxpayer money to "persuade" people to buy them (and carmakers to produce them), which is money we don't have in the first place. They practically admit they WANT the price of gas to go up, yet there's currently no realistic alternative for the masses.

    I'm not against alternative energy -- we NEED to figure out a better way to do things. But it seems the gov't (both sides) is always jumping on "the next big thing", and instead of taking the time to study it and get it right, they rush the process and push an agenda, and it rarely seems to benefit the taxpayer . . .

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us