Snowball Earth says otherwise.
Sorry to be pedantic, but the very earliest settlement of Iceland took place at the earliest during the mid-7th century.there was a warm period in the first few centuries BC when the Norse folk were able to discover and colonize Iceland
Excerpted from “2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade,” NASA, 01.21.10
[SIZE="+2"]2[/SIZE]009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. …
January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s. …
You're breaking Rule #4.T.h.a.t. I.s. N.o.t. H.o.w. G.l.o.b.a.l. W.a.r.m.i.n.g. W.o.r.k.s.
Because this isn't about energy, it's about socialism. It's called green socialism.The general balance of scientific opinion is in favour of global warming being real (although not meaning that everywhere will get warmer) and that human activity does contribute to it to some extent. If this is true then a lot of work needs to be done to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and reduce the use of fossil fuels.
If by any chance climate change is NOT created or exacerbated by human activity then the reduction of the use of fossil fuels will not have damaged the climate in any way, it will have created a more balanced way of securing fuels for use domestically and industrially. In itself this would be a positive development. It would reduce our dependency on some less than savoury regimes (Saudi, Russia, Iran) and it would extend the life of the fossil resources that remain underground.
I don't understand the antagonism towards developing alternatives to fossil fuels and towards reducing our dependence on the internal combustion engine... unless this antagonism is being driven by the oil and gas industry and the motor industry. Am I being paranoid, or am I missing some terrible consequences that these developments might bring?
how do you figure that?Because this isn't about energy, it's about socialism. It's called green socialism.
Only by people who don't understand science.
Because this isn't about energy, it's about socialism. It's called green socialism.
how do you figure that?
From the first paragraph of your link:Snowball Earth says otherwise.
As noted in your link, it is only hypothetical and is challenged by others who raise legitimate questions about the hypothesis. I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility of a series of massive volcanic eruptions putting enough dust in the atmosphere to lower the temperature drastically for several centuries, but I do question whether such an event disproves my statement about general cooling.Snowball Earth refers to the hypothesis that the Earth's surface became nearly or entirely frozen over at least once during three periods between 650 and 750 million years ago. The geological community generally accepts this hypothesis because it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes and other enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents to the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[1][2] and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. There are a number of unanswered questions, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or whether it was a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.
From the first paragraph of your link:
As noted in your link, it is only hypothetical and is challenged by others who raise legitimate questions about the hypothesis. I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility of a series of massive volcanic eruptions putting enough dust in the atmosphere to lower the temperature drastically for several centuries, but I do question whether such an event disproves my statement about general cooling.
In your opinion, was The Year Without A Summer a climate event or a weather event?
No, it shouldn't. At least other than an occational tax advantage.
Tap … tap … tap …
I do think that completely denying its there, or acting so ridiculous partisan and hysterical to it the OPPOSITE direction that people degrade or insult the notion of actually attempting to conserve, to recycle, to choose INDIVIDUALLY to opt for cleaner energy or better fuel effeciency simply for fear that if you acknowledge those things are okay that you're somehow agreeing with the more extreme ends of it.
Also, whenever ANYTHING weather related happens, if you immedietely start going "GLOBAL WARMING" it doesn't convince people you're right, it just makes you look stupid.
"We didn't get a lot of snow, its global warming!"
"We got a lot of snow, its global warming!"
"Its a really hot summer, its global warming!"
"Its a cool summer, its global warming!"
"Its was a heavy hurricane season, its global warming!"
"It was a light hurricane season, its global warming!"
"Its a normal temperature season after two really cool ones, its global warming!"
Seriously, just stop...please, stop.
In all fairness, recently it has been much more heavily stacked towards "global warming is bull**** because it is snowing", but this does go on for both sides of the argument, and both are equally idiotic. Perhaps it is seasonal, and in 4 or 5 months the ratio of "weather events prove my case" will tilt back in favor of the "its global warming!!" camp.
It does happen on both sides, my issue is just slightly more with the global warming folks.
I've never heard the "no global warming" folks going "There's a hurricane, its not global warming" or "its unseasonbly hot, its not global warming" as if those things are proof.
Yet I hear that from the GW crowd. It seems like ANYTHING that is weather related, somehow, someway, is proof global warming exists. No snow? that's proof. Lots of snow? That's proof. Hot temperatures? That's proof. Cold temperatures? That's proof. Heavy bad weather times? That's proof. Really light bad weather times? That's not proof. Normal weather or average temperatures....that's just an anomaly
It does happen on both sides, my issue is just slightly more with the global warming folks.
I've never heard the "no global warming" folks going "There's a hurricane, its not global warming" or "its unseasonbly hot, its not global warming" as if those things are proof.
Yet I hear that from the GW crowd. It seems like ANYTHING that is weather related, somehow, someway, is proof global warming exists. No snow? that's proof. Lots of snow? That's proof. Hot temperatures? That's proof. Cold temperatures? That's proof. Heavy bad weather times? That's proof. Really light bad weather times? That's not proof. Normal weather or average temperatures....that's just an anomaly
What I actually posted was "no PERMANENT icecaps until 15 million years ago" and I gave you a link to my source. Shall we discuss the meaning of "permanent"?You see the difference is that he did not present this hypothesis as factual and completely indisputable, while you did with your "no icecaps until 15 million years ago" claim.
What I actually posted was "no PERMANENT icecaps until 15 million years ago" and I gave you a link to my source. Shall we discuss the meaning of "permanent"?
I don't believe the extremely large lengths we would theoritically need to go, the amount of economic damage we'll do, and the amount of damage we'll do to our freedoms, is worth the minisucle likely impact it would have in the large scope of things.
What are these "extremely large lengths" we might go to? Driving more economical cars? Heating only the rooms we actually use? Investing in alternative energy sources? How would these do any amount of economic damage? How might they damage our freedoms?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?