Did you hear that ships logs from1600-1850 further challenge global warming

Question

it took over six thousand ships logs from the mini ice age and their records show a major increase in storms over a two hundred and fifty year period. 1600-1850 or so, and there is no way man had anything to do with that. do you think we give ourselves way to much credit as far as us being able to change weather on a large or small scale. we have not warmed over the past eight years.

Answer 1

you forgot , it also changed when humans were not on this earth . take the pre-historic age. the earth will always change no matter what , everything would be dead if the earth never changed

Answer 2

um are you sure about the past 8 years??:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

Answer 3

I  bet  those  logs  are interesting.  BUT  why  are  the polar  bears  losing  ground  to live  on  and  glaciers  breaking  up??

Answer 4

Global warming is a load of SHIZNAT!!!! All the planets on our solar system are warming due to the approach of planet X....go to youtube and look up planet X!!

Answer 5

yep

Answer 6

yes.

The global warming n***s don't exist to speak or listen to the truth.

They exist to deny the people of this world life liberty and happiness.  They want us all to be impoverished, or better yet - dead.

Answer 7

I agree. Global warming has become a "popular" thing to care about. It's not happening. Things naturally change with or without us. It's not like we know this wouldn't have happened if we weren't here. Stupid liberals & stupid liberal media! "Go Green" ...how about you GO jump of a bridge!

Answer 8

The physical evidence of warmer temperatures during the period from the 11th through 13th centuries, following a warming up during the 10th and 11th, comes from nearly every corner of the globe.

Yet based on a faulty interpretation of the growth patterns of bristlecone pine tree rings, Mann came up with his Hockey Stick, which Dana now cites.

The Hockey Stick is the climate science equivalent of Piltdown Man.

Answer 9

No I didn't here that but, I have seen a scientific study that backs your claim.

In a study conducted by an international team of scientist, "A New History of Major Atlantic Hurricane Activity Over the Past 270 Years",

"The researchers report that the average frequency (number per year) of major Atlantic hurricanes "decreased gradually from the 1760s until the early 1990s, reaching anomalously low values during the 1970s and 1980s." More specifically, they note that "a gradual downward trend is evident from an average of ~4.1 (1775-1785) to ~1.5 major hurricanes [per year] during the late 1960s to early 1990s," and that "the current active phase (1995-2005) is unexceptional compared to the [many] other high-activity periods of ~1756-1774, 1780-1785, 1801-1812, 1840-1850, 1873-1890 and 1928-1933." Hence, they conclude that the recent ratcheting up of major Atlantic hurricane activity appears to be simply "a recovery to normal hurricane activity [our italics]."

Answer 10

Got a source?

Nobody is saying that humans are the only cause of climate change, so I'm not sure why you think this challenges global warming.  Look at the graph linked below.

Answer 11

come on it was all them big gas guzzling trucks going around in the 1600s

Answer 12

Give the doom and gloomers time, they'll make up soemthing to try and discredit this information.

Answer 13

It might be interesting data to add to the discussion, but since you give no data, I will completely dismiss it.

Answer 14

No, I think you give yourself way to much credit for thinking you know what your talking about.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

There's my data, where is yours?

Answer 15

There math is in error and they made some mistakes. First the thermometers were uncaliborated to anything near the accuracy they are presenting. They were old city temperatures and many could be boiler housed. Then to average the world preovides some more problems. There are many more citys in the warm zone than in the cold zone.If U put in 3 more warm cities than cols cities it will slant the data as if the world was hotter. It is a scan by the Left as they want us to be without oil and will block anything that we might try.  

Answer 16

Global warming is the biggest scam ever to be perpetrated on mankind dwarfing even the dangerous illusions of communism and fascism because this pseudo science has deranged proponents globally.  This pseudo science has already had deadly consequences on humanity with the potential to inflict even more harm on humanity and the environment.  

The perpetrators of this fraud have enriched themselves in the process.  Al Gore is now a billionaire thanks to this great lie, yet he himself hypocritically does not subscribe to the global warming craze.  His home uses more energy in one month than 40 houses use in a year; he uses a private jet to travel around espousing this bs; and his fleet of limos idle with the air conditioner on while waiting hours for him while he gives speeches.  The American people need to wake up and see global warming for the fraud it really is before it totally destroys us as a nation and a people.  And now congress wants to reintroduce the ‘Climate Security Act. Anyone who votes for Demoncrats deserve what they get because the Demons are pushing this gobal warming insanity.   In case you haven’t heard about the 'Climate Security Act' the Demons want to enact here is Walter Williams on the subject:

“If you’re bothered by skyrocketing food and energy prices, wait until Congress re-introduces its environmentalist-inspired Climate Security Act, so-called ‘Cap and Trade.’ Cap and Trade is deceptively peddled as a free-market solution to the yet-to-be-settled issue of manmade climate change. Under its provisions, companies would be able to emit greenhouse gases only if they had a government allowance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent cut in emissions would raise the annual average household’s energy costs by $1,300. Since energy is an input to everything we use, we can expect everything to become more costly, resulting in a reduction in economic growth. There’s a hateful side to Cap and Trade that’s revealed by asking the question: How will it be decided who received how much allowance to emit greenhouse gases? Congress could sell the allowances and/or give them away to favorite constituents. You can bet the rent money that a new army of lobbyists, with special pleadings, will descend on Washington to lobby Congress. And you can be sure that campaign contributions and favoritism will play an important role in the decision of who received what amount of allowances. Much worse than that is the massive control government would have over our economy and our lives... The thirst to wield massive control over our economy helps explain the near religious belief in manmade global warming and the attacks on scientists and others who offer contradictory evidence.” —Walter Williams

Answer 17

Here are a couple of links regarding the herein-referenced 'ships logs'.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en...

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story...

Answer 18

What? You mean there is actually "now" evidence that natural processes have effected storms in the past? Wow, that totally destroys the theory of AGW ;-)

You're obviously spending too much time reading personal blogs by non-scientists.  Even if you did provide a source (which is necessary if you want anyone to take you seriously), it still has no impact on the theory of AGW.  Just as both nature (e.g. lightening) and humans (e.g. matches) can cause forest fires, so also are there natural and human factors that influence the climate.

And FYI, the theory of AGW isn't based on storm frequency, it's based on the fact that increased greenhouse gases, from human activities, are warming the planet. Any storm related connection would be a consequence, not a necessary requirement for AGW to be right.

Answer 19

"Global Warming" was used to ephasize our use of toxins that was destroying our natural state, such as cutting trees and not planting new ones, dumping toxic sludge and chemicals into the ocean, ect. The use of this term was to bring awareness of us damaging our own planet. Now, that it has become a big "save the enviroment" issue, the throwing around of the phrase "Global Warming" and us causing this effect is pure bunk. I agree with you. The world has been changing from one phase to another for millions of years. We are just noticing these changes because it is happening in the last century and this century. When we hit the "plateau" of change again, we will not be so adamant on the subject for another 100 yrs. Our politicians and manufacturers of "enviromentally safe" and "Hepa technology" products are the ones making the world "Global Warming" more lucretive. In the past 30 yrs Hepa and it's investors, have been making money on this. They are going to push it for all it's worth because it is a money making slogan. Yes, it is good to help keep polutants down and to protect our enviroment from foreign toxins and chemicals and trying to keep it at its natural state,but large industrial countries like ours have been doing this for a very long time and now others are following. To use the scare of "Global Warming" instead of natural change to inforce the fear is a little rediculous. Not only the mini Ice Age was a factor but giant volcanic eruptions, tectonic plate shifts under the oceans and on land, erosion, as well as several large meteorite impacts from the late 1400's to the most recent large impact in Hoba, Nambibia in 1920 which weighed 60 tons and was hurled at the rate of 5,200 miles per hour. This would shake the ground and impact shifts in the earths crust, kicked huge amounts of dust and deprise, possibly caused a large fire, and adding toxins or impurities unknown to our current planet which may cause a chain reaction with plant, animal, or human life.

This may help explain where I am going with this.......

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/to... - This is an excerpt from this article..........

"Two hundred million years before Yucatan, the Permian extinction was even more devastating. We do not know the cause. It may have been a meteorite, but another theory blames the “clathrate gun”, a massive release of methane from the ocean floor. Global warming could cause large methane release from permafrost or trigger another shot from the clathrate gun. But the environmental damage that humans cause is modest relative to the damage the environment can impose on itself."

This is one of the proofs that explain away Global Warming and our very little place in the cause of it.

I am glad you asked this question. You will get a lot of mixed info on it and it will have to be you who decides what is real and what is media and economic hype.