It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Last Ten Years of Global Warming Never happened

page: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I imagine just like for the last 4.5 billion years our Earth will follow the same cycles of change that she always has with or without Humanity's consent!




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Do you have a source for this story?



No it was never publicized. I was working as a foreign chaplain for the Provincial PNP at the time when it happened. It is rare but it happens. The young lady was 16 and was a bit traumatized by the whole event. Not everything makes the AP selection of world news.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

It is the melting of glacial ice that rests on land that will raise sea levels.

Think of it like this: If you have a glass of ice water, when you ice melts you will not have a higher level in your glass. If you take ice that is not in the glass (glacial ice on land) and it melts into the glass of water, of course the level rises.

Therefore, the arctic ice melting is not a problem regarding rising levels. The glacial melting in Greenland would be a problem and if the glacial ice from Antarctica melts we are in deep trouble.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Koch brother had a little tea party when they rolled out Obama Care because they are heavily invested in those little kiosks that offer services for people without health care. They are the PAYDAY LENDERS of the medical industrial complex and Obama care hurt their stocks, and their plans.

They also have money in oil. So like the Witch of the West summoned her monkeys, the Koch brothers wave fists full of dollars and gather another little tea party of anti-climate, anti-evolution, anti-science people and sic them on little Dorothy who is against burning oil. A trade that not only pollutes the air we breath, it's killing the small shore sea life and eventually we won't have fish and marine life to eat...Thanks to Big Oil Money. Not to mention this is a field of work that buries men alive.

If you think "little Dorothy" is just Al Gore...Why is it almost every intelligent and scientific mind in the world give or take a couple of nuts that believe man's burning of fossil fuels is having a disastrous and irreversible effect? Why everyone? The climate deniers come on like Copernicus but without the credentials.


edit on 8-7-2014 by Loveaduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I imagine just like for the last 4.5 billion years our Earth will follow the same cycles of change that she always has with or without Humanity's consent!





And if humanity can add to this and eff it up even further, they will.
You can bet your bottom dollar they will.

When the estuaries are gone. We are gone. The beginnings of all ocean life starts there and if you harm the smallest food source you can kill it all. That is what the oil business has done. That oil spill in the gulf...we have not seen the stone crabs come back and that was big business here in FL. I miss eating them and selling them. Already gone.
Screw Al Gore and air pollution. I want the fish back.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Loveaduck

While I realize this may be off-topic, I like to ease suffering when I can and I think I can help yours.


That oil spill in the gulf...we have not seen the stone crabs come back and that was big business here in FL. I miss eating them and selling them.


Perhaps you know of Billy's stone crab restaurant in Miami-Ft. Lauderdale? Their web site is here.
www.crabs.com...

Billy's also sells wholesale and on line. On their home page they have this to say:


The Florida Stone Crab is a delicious sustainable food which is caught locally right off our coast.

All of the stone crab claws on the market come from wild fisheries, making this product a true natural seafood item. The Florida stone crab is usually fished near jetties, oyster reefs or other rocky areas.

The good news is that the stone crab population levels are estimated to be high and as of now, no overfishing is happening. This can be partially attributed to the unique process by which stone crab claws are harvested. Taking only a single claw provides the crab with a much better chance of survival when it is returned and helps ensure the long-term sustainability of the species.

www.crabs.com...

This information is from 2014. It appears the oil spill effect on Florida stone crabs is not as you describe it. Now you don't have to worry about the stone crabs. Feel better?



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: guohua
But why are environmentalists and scientists not discussing the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere of ice?
I under stand that across the globe, there are about one million square kilometers more sea ice than, let's say, 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began, I think, That's what I read.
So it's fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate Changer's Don't You think?

You read wrong, or the place you read it was wrong.

Total ice extent across the globe has been trending down:


Southern Hemisphere ice extent has been trending up:


Northern Hemisphere ice extent has been trending much more down:


The source is listed in the charts. This is from over 11000 measurements on both the NH and SH since 1978 (YYYYMMDD format). The reason for the smaller gaps in the earlier years is because there were fewer measurements and I was too lazy to standardize the distances on the graph with artificial inserts.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Regarding total area of ice for the whole of the globe going down, one must also take into consideration volume. I wonder if the volume is going down, up or perhaps (as I suspect) remaining fairly constant as a whole.

Reason I say this is that Antarctica ice tends to be much thicker than the North American version, particularly now.

During the last period of glaciation it was primarily the glaciers in the north that grew. Are we seeing the coming of glaciation that will primarily take place in the Southern Hemisphere? Or...are we just seeing a balancing of an overall system where the northern glaciers are shrinking and the southern are growing?



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Loveaduck

While I realize this may be off-topic, I like to ease suffering when I can and I think I can help yours.


That oil spill in the gulf...we have not seen the stone crabs come back and that was big business here in FL. I miss eating them and selling them.


Perhaps you know of Billy's stone crab restaurant in Miami-Ft. Lauderdale? Their web site is here.
www.crabs.com...

Billy's also sells wholesale and on line. On their home page they have this to say:


The Florida Stone Crab is a delicious sustainable food which is caught locally right off our coast.

All of the stone crab claws on the market come from wild fisheries, making this product a true natural seafood item. The Florida stone crab is usually fished near jetties, oyster reefs or other rocky areas.

The good news is that the stone crab population levels are estimated to be high and as of now, no overfishing is happening. This can be partially attributed to the unique process by which stone crab claws are harvested. Taking only a single claw provides the crab with a much better chance of survival when it is returned and helps ensure the long-term sustainability of the species.

www.crabs.com...

This information is from 2014. It appears the oil spill effect on Florida stone crabs is not as you describe it. Now you don't have to worry about the stone crabs. Feel better?


It doesn't really make me feel any better Charles because that story about the Stone Crabs from the beginning of selling them. That sounds to me like the tired one liner on the bottom of a menu to make the patrons feel OK about eating them.

Why don't you compare Billy's prices for Stone Crab to pre-spill days?

Friend of my fiance has a boat and they're in the business of catching Stone Crabs and selling them to places like Billies. We used to get 10 pounds free, every year along with some smoked jack fish dip. That doesn't happen any more because the boat is barely getting by on it's catch.

Regardless of what Billy is telling tourist on his menu - the Stone Crab fishing business has been hit hard. The stone crabs are born at the bottom of the ocean, where the oil falls to and they've suffocated before anyone could pull one claw off and throw them back.

Thanks for trying to make me feel better though. That was a nice gesture.
But I hope I helped you a little. Knowledge is power.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero Not sure but all the green hose gasses rise into our atmosphere and are supposed to create the layer of gas that would make it warm. But they say it hasn't been. What about the hole in the ozone layer getting much larger. None seem to dispute that. Wouldn't that leak more gasses out and stabilize it? Shouldn't we be talking about that also. No one talks about that anymore it seems.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: roth1

The hole in the ozone will not "let gasses leak out"...it will, however, allow an increased amount of radiation in. When you toss in the weakening magnetic field that has lost 15% of it's strength since the beginning of the industrial revolution one has to wonder if whatever climate change we see is due more to those factors than man's.

I question man's involvement in "climate change", given that the above conditions exist; given that climate change is, and always has been constant; given that existing climate models are extremely faulty and cannot predict crap (scientific method, anyone?) which proves we do not know squat about how climate change works.

However, there is no argument that the tundra is melting. As the tundra melts, massive amounts of methane will be released into the atmosphere which WILL contribute to global warming. The question is: Is there a damned thing we (mankind) can do to even begin to prevent that from happening? I doubt it....



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I don't trust and have never trusted the research behind the claims of AGW or the opposite argument. Whether it is happening or not the science has been infiltrated by politics. The funding politicians expect results for the funding they put into it and you can be sure those politicians do not want to see results that contradict their preconceived notions. Therefore the great majority of the research is not impartial and the results are suspect. Politics must be removed from scientific research so that those involved can study in peace.

That was my political take on the subject. My personal views differ. I don't think AGW or the lack of it have much to do with humans. The planet will tick right along no matter what happens and humans simply do not possess the power to stop the climate, one way or the other. No, the problem for humans is the resources we expend. Everything, literally every known natural resources has had its use increase ridiculously in the last century. Fresh water, trees, oil, food, you name it, everything humans need to survive is going to become scarce and the "climate" is going to have very little to do with that outcome short of a runaway greenhouse effect(which we would be unable to stop anyway).

Once again our idiot politicians are focusing on the wrong problems.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: roth1
a reply to: Xtrozero Not sure but all the green hose gasses rise into our atmosphere and are supposed to create the layer of gas that would make it warm. But they say it hasn't been. What about the hole in the ozone layer getting much larger. None seem to dispute that. Wouldn't that leak more gasses out and stabilize it? Shouldn't we be talking about that also. No one talks about that anymore it seems.



The hole is not actually a hole, it is the displacement of ozone by CFC gasses that do not protect us from radiation. Ozone is continually created so the "hole grows and shrinks every year. BTW it is over Antarctic so kind of remote.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: My_Reality
I don't trust and have never trusted the research behind the claims of AGW or the opposite argument. Whether it is happening or not the science has been infiltrated by politics. The funding politicians expect results for the funding they put into it and you can be sure those politicians do not want to see results that contradict their preconceived notions.
Therefore the great majority of the research is not impartial and the results are suspect.


Where is the actual evidence this is happening? Is it just your feeling? Why is it the same science in US and New Zealand and Canada and France and Russia and Germany and Japan and China where the politicians are all different?


And this theory to suppress somehow must have started 50 years ago, because that when the physics research started getting going. Was any politician 50 years ago even remotely aware? Obviously not.



Politics must be removed from scientific research so that those involved can study in peace.


True.

Almost always the actual evidence is on the side of politicians attempting to suppress truthful results which show significant human responsibility or significant consequences.



I don't think AGW or the lack of it have much to do with humans. The planet will tick right along no matter what happens and humans simply do not possess the power to stop the climate, one way or the other. No, the problem for humans is the resources we expend. Everything, literally every known natural resources has had its use increase ridiculously in the last century. Fresh water, trees, oil, food, you name it, everything humans need to survive is going to become scarce


Since clearly you see the ability of humans to substantially alter the supply of natural phenomena like water, trees and oil, why not the ability of humans to substantially alter the radiative properties of the atmosphere through fossil fuel emissions? And in addition, this happens to be a quantitatively verified scientific fact from direct measurements over decades from satellites, aircraft and balloons?

It's purely emotional reasoning to exclude climate from the whole list of planetary-scale properties which 7-8 billion humans with power tools can change.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Loveaduck

"When the estuaries are gone. We are gone."

Technically this is not the case, we can still eat one another, for a little while!

Or TPTB can decide to release some of our shall we say black technology allowing humanity to depart this rock and be on to greener pastures.

After all Mars and some of the exoplanets could quite possibly be within our reach by then.

Then again chance would be a fine thing!



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


I see...so the end of the last period of glacial growth which resulted in the massive glaciers melting and pulling back would have also eliminated the estuaries of the period since they would have been flooded. And yet..ocean life did not die. Ocean life did not die off during glaciation nor during the retreat of glaciation.

If Antarctica were to melt, would there be severe effects? Yes. Would ocean life die off? History tells us no. Will man die off? Absolutely not.

We and other species would, no doubt, be stressed. We would have to move our cities inland or build massive levies to contain the floods and preserve living space but we would not die off.

The period in pre-history that resulted in the greatest diversity of life on record was during much higher temps than we see now and higher co2 levels as well. Oddly enough, man was not responsible for the co2 levels of the time.

A return to glacial growth would more likely result in more deaths, more of a threat to our lives and that of the flora and fauna of our current ecosystem than an increase in temperature.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I agree that man has the ability to alter climate to some degree. To how much of a degree?

Everyone on the global warming/climate change bandwagon seem to want to believe that man is solely responsible, or at least seem to present it that way.

At the same time the industrial revolution has taken place, our magnetosphere has decreased in strength by 15%. How much has that played into the problem? Do current GW/CC advocates even discuss this? Is it included in the climate models? The answer to both is no...one has to ask why? Is there an agenda involved which would result in the ignoring of such a potent affect on climate change?

As temperatures rise, so does the level of co2. Such has been the case before man was on the scene, and such is the case today.... so how much has man contributed to a natural process?

Man is not to blame for climate change...at worst man has contributed to a process that was already in place and is powerless to prevent the process from happening.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mbkennel

I agree that man has the ability to alter climate to some degree. To how much of a degree?


To the degree our best understanding of physics says.



Everyone on the global warming/climate change bandwagon seem to want to believe that man is solely responsible, or at least seem to present it that way.


No, but man is mostly responsible for current climate change because the observations say so.



At the same time the industrial revolution has taken place, our magnetosphere has decreased in strength by 15%. How much has that played into the problem? Do current GW/CC advocates even discuss this? Is it included in the climate models? The answer to both is no...one has to ask why?


Because there has to be physical mechanism validated which makes this a factor and it has to be demonstrated quantitatively to matter. Just putting up hypotheticals isn't enough. There is plenty of other internal observations, like poles warming more than equator, night warming more than day, and winter warming more than summer which is compatible physically with increased greenhouse effect and not other causes.



Is there an agenda involved which would result in the ignoring of such a potent affect on climate change?


Physics? How do you know it is a 'potent effect'? And why should you ignore another effect which is very well validated?
That's what climate research for 50 years has been about, quantifying as many physical processes as possible and weighing their influence. You don't know better than them.

The absorption and albedo of the atmosphere from particulates also has a significant influence---there are both cooling and warming influences from particulates depending on their nature and altitude. Volcanism tends to cool and black carbon soot from fires (e.g. wood burning stoves in India) actually tends to warm.



As temperatures rise, so does the level of co2. Such has been the case before man was on the scene, and such is the case today


except today, the CO2 went up first, and temperature went up much later---and in fact because of pollution later than it otherwise would have.

The behavior is different but the underlying physics which causes things is of course the same.


.... so how much has man contributed to a natural process?


Quite a bit, because man has been digging up oil and coal and burning it and this time the CO2 went up much much faster and with a larger magnitude than paleoclimate. And the carbon in the oceans is going up, not down, so oceans are not releasing.

Obviously things are different this time because humans are doing something profoundly different than in previous circumstances. And laws of physics are eternal: more electromagnetic radiation hitting the ground means temperature going up. More greenhouse effect means more electromagnetic radiation hitting the ground.



Man is not to blame for climate change...at worst man has contributed to a process that was already in place and is powerless to prevent the process from happening.


That's simply assertion without evidence. Decades ago before all the effects were fully measured and quantified you could say that things aren't yet known, but now they are known enough.

You just want to feel like man is powerless in order to evade responsibility for the consequences which are personally or politically unpalatable. They are to me as well, but I accept reality.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
A return to glacial growth would more likely result in more deaths, more of a threat to our lives and that of the flora and fauna of our current ecosystem than an increase in temperature.


How about neither? An Ice Age is 5 degrees globally cool, and glaciers were two miles thick in New York. Obviously catastrophic to civilization. We're heading to almost that much warm in a Heat Age. That could be almost as catastrophic as well. It's an insane risk to take.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Loveaduck

"When the estuaries are gone. We are gone."

Technically this is not the case, we can still eat one another, for a little while!

Or TPTB can decide to release some of our shall we say black technology allowing humanity to depart this rock and be on to greener pastures.

After all Mars and some of the exoplanets could quite possibly be within our reach by then.

Then again chance would be a fine thing!


It will be easier to save the estuary's and wetlands that serve as aquifers for the planet, basically the earths kidneys and the rainforests that are it's lungs. Some simple common sense steps now. Everyone is armed and it is not going to be easy to eat them. Not only does the former make more sense, is it easier, it is more ethical and what the people on the planet who are not already suffering from metals poisoning want to do.





top topics



 
42
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join