Emerging Tech

Diamonds: Girl's best friend / Evidence of global cooling?


NoAmBullseye

Scientists will reveal this week, at the American Geophysical Union meeting in Acapulco, a layer of microscopic diamonds at 26 different sites across Europe, Canada and the US. The diamonds are said to be 12,900 year-old remains of a huge carbon-rich comet that smashed Neolithic society, drove the first Americans to extinction along with the woolly mammoth, and plunged Earth into another thousand-year ice age, AKA the Younger-Dryas period.

"The result would have been hell on Earth. Most of the Northern Hemisphere would have been left on fire," said Arizona geophysicist Allen West. "Great grazing animals like the mammoth that had survived the original blast would later have died in their thousands from starvation."

Yes, global warming's been found. Found on Mars and Neptune, specifically, mega-miles from our tailpipes. Some scientists do propose solar variability's involved, the only theory explaining warming on planets other than ours.

We know Earth's been far warmer; Greenland was green, and Iceland was Vinland because grapes grew there, without drowning low-lying Holland. How good is the science behind global warming, if it doesn't explain the above? Join the discussion.

35 comments
stan
stan

There always has been climate change, since the time the planet formed. And there always will be, until the sun burns out and the planet approaches absolute zero. Then the climate will be stable and unchanging. Is global warming caused by human activity? The question should be: is it a scam or a religion? It certainly isn?t scientific fact. If its warmer than normal, that?s proof of global warming. If its colder than normal, that?s proof of global warming too. And if it?s the same as normal, that must be global warming too! If there are more hurricanes than average, or fewer, its global warming that?s to blame! Too wet? Too dry? We better act today or the entire planet will be destroyed! Politicians love global warming. It gives them a reason why they should control every aspect of our lives. The anti-capitalists see it as a way to destroy every free industrial economy. The leftists see it as a reason to institute socialism everywhere. It doesn?t have anything to do with science of actual evidence. The ice sheet in Greenland is retreating, as are the glaciers in the Alps. As the ice in Greenland melts, we are finding the ruins of houses and barns built a thousand years ago by settlers who raised cattle and grew crops between about 850 and 1300. When it was quite a bit warmer than it is now. And the retreating glaciers in the Alps have revealed silver mines, with the workers tools stacked neatly by the entrance as if the workers expected to return the next day. But the climate turned colder, the snows came, and didn?t retreat for a thousand years. The medieval warm period was about as warm as the doomsayers are claiming the planet will be in a hundred years or so if we don?t take drastic action immediately. It was a period of unprecedented plenty and prosperity. That?s when most of the great cathedrals in Europe were built. A slightly longer growing season resulted in a large increase in food production And, by the way, the planet survived.

deepsand
deepsand

have no understanding of the underlying & unavoidable laws of physics and chemistry, that you've not analyzed any of the pertinent data, and have no intention of becoming informed of either. So, all you've got is an unsubstantiated opinion. Which makes your zealotry no less born of ignorance than that of the most rabid tree-huggers.

stan
stan

But I think that a background in Physics at the University of Chicago and 50 years in conservation gives me as good an understanding of the basic priciples as the next person. I'm sure we are all eager to have you explain the laws of physics and chemistry so all us poor uneducated peasants can see the light.

NotSoChiGuy
NotSoChiGuy

The problem, as I see it, is that it always seems as though the need to prove a particular position correct supersedes the importance of the contributing problems associated with the position(s). Is there global warming? Is there global cooling? Is anything really happening at all? Honestly, I'm not a climatologist, and agendas aside, there is enough evidence presented by all sides of the argument to cause me to be skeptical of each side (they can't all be right). However, deforestation (reduction in both amount of O2 as well as ability to naturally filter CO2) coupled with increased pollutant emissions (driving on a highway under repair surrounded by 18-wheelers is enough for me) would seem to me to be an apparent net negative on the environment; regardless of what that net negative ends up leading to down the line. Now, we could all debate until we're blue in the face that global warming or cooling is happening, but I don't think there can be much debate that there are negative strains being placed upon the ecosystem. Another example is the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Debate all you will what it will lead to and cause, but I would DARE anyone that thinks it isn't a problem to go swimming in that synthetic soup for any amount of time. I liken it to a couple if fireman sitting in a dry forest, witnessing the start of a small fire, extinguishers in hand. One says it will start a forest fire. The other one doubts that it will. They go back in forth in disagreement. HOW ABOUT JUST PUTTING OUT THE D____ED FIRE AND BE DONE WITH IT??? Focus on the actual contributing problems (as well as can be), and the end result becomes less of an issue either way.

deepsand
deepsand

hazard insurance on his house, liability insurance on his car, & several other policies as well. It's funny how some people can perceive the need to guard against eventualities that would affect them personally, but not those which affect all.

NotSoChiGuy
NotSoChiGuy

...something out of a Seinfeld or Howie Mandel comedy routine, only not very funny. Hopefully, the next administration will be able to play a little more attention to actual issues of common concern, and not continually be obligated to deflect scandal after scandal (between everything Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush the lesser have faced, that whole 'No New Taxes' affair seems pretty mundane in retrospect...Bush the elder, where art thou).

deepsand
deepsand

Ok, so GWB doesn't like to read, and we therefore should no longer be surprised at his frequent gaffs. He could at least have heeded his father's advice, rather than taking a "you're either with me or against me" attitude.

DanLM
DanLM

renewable fuels. Gets independent of foreign terrorists/extortionists. And it should address the other issue that nobody can seem to agree on. My position is independence. And anyone want to guesstimate how many degree's our foreign policy would turn if we didn't have to kiss every terrorist/extortionist foreign leaders a$$ for a continued supply of energy. sh...... I'll let everyone blow their own little horns if that's what it takes to get us energy independent. And I promise to only make fun of the extremist idiots now and again. And otherwise let them be their normal blowhard selves for the most part. My major complaints with the global warming/environmentalists are as follows. 1). I truly believe their are a lot of them that want to dismantle the industries of this nation. 2). They can't even agree on the time of day let alone a solution. Use nuclear, no don't use nuclear. Use biofuels, no don't use bio fuels. They need to get slapped alongside the head and told to make up their freakin minds what to do. Otherwise, nothing will get done. dan

deepsand
deepsand

"don't do anything" vs "just do something, [u]anything.[/u]" Those in the former aren't about to offer any solutions, while those of the latter either can't choose or don't care [u]which[/u] solution. Those of us who try to maintain a rational & analytical perspective are caught between those arguing over whether to bail out the boat using one's hands or by soaking clothing and wringing it out overboard, and those who say don't worry, we'll be rescued before we sink.

NotSoChiGuy
NotSoChiGuy

As you indicate, unless there is a glaringly obvious solution (in terms of hypoxic zone, it is easy to identify, don't dump unnatural gunk into the water), or a strong consensus as what needs to be done; debate surrounding a solution would be just as fruitless as debate is now as to what will eventually happen. I also agree about the impact of addressing the fuel issue, and how it goes far beyond the environment. Without going too far into it, all I will say is I find it interesting that the majority of the 9/11 plane hijackers were not of Iraqi, Iranian or even Afghan decent...and had their common country of origin not been so oil rich, and bending us over the economic barrel, I feel it would have been held to a little more scrutiny (I mean, those terrorist camps and activities need $$$, and who has more $$$ to freely give in that region that the oil-rich royal families). In driving through southern Illinois last weekend, I found it encouraging to see how many soy and corn fields actually had signs indicating that they were designated for the use of biofuel. Dare to dream!

deepsand
deepsand

It seems that your understandings of women & science are about the same.

DanLM
DanLM

Nobody understands either of them. They both are quandary. global warming, why is it getting cooler? Women, hell... I don't even think women understand women. Neither is as they seem. They could be totally opposite of what you think they are. To imply that you understand either is to lie to yourself. I have a bridge to sell if your interested. Dan

deepsand
deepsand

I can see pros & cons for each side, but not how much weight to give to each factor.

deepsand
deepsand

Besides, if you're both facing the same direction, how do one's feet end up at the other's back?

Tig2
Tig2

Mostly because cold feet on your back in the middle of the night can be an unpleasant experience. Or so I'm told...

DanLM
DanLM

Global warming. I truthfully don't care. I have my own motives for wanting renewable energy. That is all I care about, so I'll just let it go at that and move on. women, I gave up. I listen to everything said because when it is asked of me, I'll remember what I think they said. At least it won't be held against me that I never listen. Just that I'm a stupid male and don't understand. Dan

Tig2
Tig2

And women DO understand most women. It is the crazed 1% that leave us shaking our heads.

maecuff
maecuff

And even the crazy ones are sometimes understandable. May not agree, but I do understand...

deepsand
deepsand

To imply that past physical events on Earth, or those on any other planet, have any bearing of radiative forcing on Earth is to diplay a great ignorance of the sciences, and not worthy of debate.

mike
mike

This article has to do with an (important) anomaly over 10,000 years ago, but doesn't even dispute current global warming theories, nor provide any contradictory evidence. Just trying to stir the pot? Get back to your day job.

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

first, we have little data on temp of neptune, second it is so far from the sun that any degree of warming caused by solar variations is miniscule and irrelevant. mars is the only other planet that could be affected much by solar variations that is slightly similar to earth, and changes there are irrelevant to climate change on earth because: the atmosphere is so much thinner composition is different from that of earth very little water / vapor there certainly are periods of natural warming, cooling in the past, typically because of events such as supervolcanos, which almost wiped out humanity 74,000 years ago, leaving only a few thousand survivors and drastically reducing genetic variability. We've got the additional problem that in addition to warming, vast pollution is hurting ability of plants in the ocean - phytoplankton that produce 70% of the earth's oxygen - to survive. And this pollution is caused in part by the same greenhouse gas, CO2 acidifying the ocean and making it hard for plankton and corals to accrete their shells. Do you have an oxygen generator in your house? I didn't think so.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

.

deepsand
deepsand

you or yours are dependent upon it. My very best friend of nearly 40 years has emphysema, sleep apnea, an allergy that causes the tongue to swell rapidly, and, since childhood, has been exceedingly prone to chronic respiratory infections. Not only is he married to his oxygen machine, but must also keep an epy pen within close reach at all times. As is all of that weren't bad enough, he's overweight and at risk for congestive heart failure. Now 59.5 yrs. old, it will be a surprise, albeit a pleasant one, should he live to be eligible for full SS.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

But there's an intake port, so I suspect it's a concentrator.

statseeker
statseeker

The earth has warmed more in the last 150 years than it had in any other 150 year stretch in over 100,000 years. Sure there had been cycles before that. But this cycle is particularly high compared to any other since the ice ages. This doubt comes from the same people that ask why the global warming theory is called a theory. They do not understand the way science works, they just know that to them, if it's a theory, then it is not true. 99 percent of the evidence could point to the theory being true. But they would not believe it because in science it is still called a theory. The facts are that the earth is warming quickly. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in recorded time (hundreds of thousands of years). There has been no contrary evidence minus a few small areas that have experienced cooling. Most of that cooling is as a result of water melting from the poles cooling small areas that had previously been slightly warmer. Why is this still being disputed when we know as human beings we have to stop polluting the earth anyway? Do we not want to take responsibility and maybe do the work the save the freaking planet? Of course not, American Idol is on. PSH!

unhappyuser
unhappyuser

The answer buzzer shows WRONG! There was a cooling trend from the 1940's into the 1970's. The temperature changes are increasing IN LINE with increased solar activity. Look carefully at Al Gore's ("I invented the internet") C02 data and you'll see that they are opposite as what he claims. This data is fact and has been around for several years. Why is it ignored? One more money maker for the corrupt. THAT's why it's still a theory.

deepsand
deepsand

To the contrary, it's existence was first formally proposed in the 19th century, and the physics of such are now quite well understood, with empirical data to support such. Radiative forcing is now a Theory - note the capital "T" - rather than conjecture. If you're truly interested in the [u]science[/u] here involved, there are a myriad on-line sources, easily found, which address radiative forcing & radiation balance, as well as details as to why certain molecules do or do not absorb & re-emit infrared radiation. On the other hand, if you're [u]not[/u] interested in & informed of the science, then any statements that you make are mere conjecture.

K7AAY
K7AAY

More evidence is mounting to challenge global warming theorists, including the latest which shows a millenium-wide global cooling not shown by global warming models. Whose science do you trust?

stan
stan

If he did, he wouldn't have built his mega-mansion in Tennessee, but some place further north, maybe the Canadian Rockies, or better yet Greenland. Nearly all of Greenland is more than 500 feet above sea level, so rising sea levels wouldn?t be a problem, and you buy land for a few dollars per square mile!

Tig2
Tig2

And I am good with that until PROVEN incorrect. Crap is crap, no matter how much it may sparkle in the sun. I would like to see evidence from a range of resources. That's just me.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Nobody's. Too many people have too much ego involved. Don't even bring in the political axes. I also suspect that current climate models are simplistic at best. It's like testing the airflow over the wing of an F-117 by holding a sheet of paper in the wind.

Editor's Picks