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.

 

Ahead of Climate Summit, we are Half Way to Crucial 2 Degree Warming Mark

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   
There's a capitalist system with people at the top who seem intent on destroying the planet, sabotaging renewable and clean energy solutions to make money from fossil fuels.

There are a lot of potential solutions from prevention to survival in the worst case scenario. It's up to the people to take it seriously and make that change, or it could be too late before people take it seriously. I'm sure we could figure out some technologies to cool the planet if everyone put their minds to it and the people of Earth come together and work together to achieve it.

How long have we even had accurate temperature measurements on record from all over the planet? Part of me thinks it's just a natural part of the systems of the planet and we don't have enough data or reference to make any conclusion. Like with many things in life, people come to wrong conclusions with limited data. Another part of me believes that climate change could be a serious problem, and if it is real we should be building some kind of underground accommodations for everyone. If it was an emergency like that then we could all be working together to create a safety net, instead of apparently ignoring it until it's too late, and then the world leaders all go to their bunkers while the rest of the world dies.

edit on 19-11-2015 by Paradeox because: Editing.




posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I won't begin to admit I know precisely what they're doing to come up with these findings as I'm no climatologist but at a guess I'd say they're comparing varying datasets between temperatures between 1880 - 2015 and CO2 emissions and obviously other factors too (if they were just comparing CO2 and temp alone it would be bad science as there's so many other variables they should really be looking at) and at its basic form it is statistical analysis, comparing data




Statistics is the study of the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data.


To say what happened billions, hell even thousands of years ago isn't much to do with what's happening today is incredibly naive, climate is cyclical, why would we not want to find data going billions of years to see patterns in the cycle, regardless of atmospheric composition/state ? Using your point of view one could easily say, what's the point in going as far back as 1880 as the atmosphere then isn't identical to what it is today. It doesn't suggest very good science if you're just going to ignore anything before a certain year, because "it's different" that just says bias to suit agenda to me sorry



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Discotech




and at its basic form it is statistical analysis, comparing data

Only in the sense that the actual data statistically fits the predictions made by the climatological physics models. The physics says that increasing levels of CO2 will lead to increasing temperatures, and son of a gun, that's what the data shows too.



why would we not want to find data going billions of years to see patterns in the cycle,
"We" do. A great deal of effort is made in reconstructing data from ancient climates and what influenced them.


It doesn't suggest very good science if you're just going to ignore anything before a certain year, because "it's different" that just says bias to suit agenda to me sorry
Sorry, where did I say any data was ignored?

edit on 11/19/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Lol I just checked the temperature here in New Jersey.

It's 58 degrees in the middle of the night. Will be 63 degrees later today. That is pretty warm!
But there is a storm coming today, so it can explain the high temperatures.

Still, it has been a warm November so far.

I have been thinking of this though: With all of this warm air, there will be alot of humidity. Once a pocket of cold air hits, we might see some very big snow storms!
edit on 19-11-2015 by Kuroodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Yes. The thing is, what happened billions of years ago doesn't really have much to do with what's happening today.


You implied that the data is irrelevant thus ignored, sorry if that's not what you meant

If a great deal of effort is made in reconstructing the data, then why is it always only ever "since records" began (usually 1880) whenever a claim is made of impending doom for our climate ?

It just suggests to me they're cherry picking data to fit their models as opposed to models fitting to the data

Also with regards to CO2, it's not only CO2 that creates the warming now is it, let's be honest there's plenty data that supports CH4 is a larger contributing factor to the climate issue than CO2, combine the 2 and it is bad for the climate but what's to say it is not part of a larger natural cycle ?

Is the sun warmer now than it was, say 100,000 years a go ?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   
BFD. I can't remember a summer such as this one, wherein we didn't use the AC…all summer long.

Because it was too cool. So what.
These past two winters I froze my ass off because they have been record shattering cold.
Still frozen from two winters ago, to be honest, so enjoy the Indian Summer won't you?
And try to eat something, your lips look thin...

Please, young NWO terrace Anschluss wannabe survivors, do remember your memes:

weather is not the same as climate
correlation does not equal causation

a reply to: reldra

# 549


edit on 19-11-2015 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2015 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2015 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus
No. Not solved. But if your hypothesis is correct, it won't hurt.
Because, you see, we don't just burn fossil fuels to heat our homes. And a good number of people don't heat their homes at all.






I fall into that category, most of my energy is spent trying to keep the temperature down



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Where I come we have 40 ft. tides ...can you imagine adding that 3.5 mm. to that 40 feet . Oh and we do get higher tides when the wind blows in the right direction . Our temperature runs from a low of -35 f to a +100 . Can you imagine putting another 2 degrees in that . we are doomed I tell you .....



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I think we are going to have to put up with some media alarm story every day until after COP21. An army of NGOs are writing letter and lobbying as we speak.

Funny that, how we pay taxes so the government can pay NGOs who pretend that they speak for the people. it seems like the only ones the government speaks to these days are the people who are paid to have the governments opinion.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
It's really hard to convey the significance of this to people who are confused yet convinced that Al Gore and them commie scientists said "we're all supposed to be underwater by now".

But since you mentioned your furnace - to those people who really don't think 1 degree is a big deal - I always like to point out: think about how much energy is required to heat your house an extra degree (Celsius). Now think about how much energy it would take to make the whole planet do that.


Terrible analogy, as the argument isn't that it's taking more energy to heat the planet up, but that the increased blanket of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is keeping the same heat from escaping away, thereby keeping the planet warmer and for longer periods of time.

In reality, the correct analogy would be to compare adding more insulation to your home, which would keep the heat in better and use a similar amount of energy to keep it at a constant temperature of one degree higher. Hell, maybe even less energy.
edit on 19-11-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
We are on page two...about something in regard to a link that isn't working??.




files.abovetopsecret.com...


Anyway,
This may be an alternative link that suits, er, very well.

www.clickorlando.com...
edit on 19-11-2015 by smurfy because: Pretty picture.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Terrible analogy, as the argument isn't that it's taking more energy to heat the planet up, but that the increased blanket of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is keeping the same heat from escaping away, thereby keeping the planet warmer and for longer periods of time.

In reality, the correct analogy would be to compare adding more insulation to your home, which would keep the heat in better and use a similar amount of energy to keep it at a constant temperature of one degree higher. Hell, maybe even less energy.


Too bad it was never an analogy on how the mechanism works, just how much energy this process takes up. I've done a gazillion threads and posts on here about the Greenhouse Effect (because no one pays any attention to it), you think I don't understand how it works?

And yes it does take more energy to heat the planet up - that's how heat and energy work. The fact that it's being retained instead of generated is besides the point. Another good example for those who like to pretend we're "arrogant" for thinking mankind can have an effect on climate is that the enhanced greenhouse effect is trapping extra energy at the rate of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.

Does this mean we're literally setting off 4 nukes a second? Of course not, but the energy equivalent is the same. Trying so hard to catch people in a gotcha moment makes you kinda miss the point entirely.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


A group of control freaks like "Open Society Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, Lorana Sullivan Foundation and the Tellus Mater Foundation." if you follow the money you find out who has been funding the rhetoric and creating shell groups to report on movements they also create .

" As well-documented in a 2014 oversight report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) actively backs campaigns to ban oil and natural gas development, including major financing for the activist group 350.org, which environmental activist Bill McKibben co-founded. RBF’s support for 350.org and its anti-fossil fuel campaigns is significant, as McKibben himself called RBF a “great ally.”

According to RBF’s website, the Fund supports efforts to “reduce reliance on carbon-intensive energy sources.” " RBF also provides funding for InsideClimate News, an activist organization that shares numerous funding sources with extreme anti-fossil fuel groups, such as Food & Water Watch and Earthworks. David Sassoon, the publisher for InsideClimate News, is a former Rockefeller Brothers Fund employee. According to the New York Times, InsideClimate News is “an outgrowth of Mr. Sassoon’s consulting work for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropic group that emphasizes climate policy.”

One of the board members at InsideClimate News, Michael Northrup, directs the Sustainable Development grantmaking program at RBF. According to InsideClimate News’ website, Northrup “provided the seed grant that got InsideClimate News started in 2007.”

Now when you got willing dupes you also need a willing politician ....."Several RBF-backed groups, including 350.org, have used the reports from InsideClimate News and Columbia fellows to call for government investigations. InsideClimate News has covered those activities extensively."

"According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Rep. Ted Lieu – the author of the letter calling for an investigation of energy companies’ climate-related activities – has received $1,000 in campaign contributions from the RBF-backed League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Since 2008, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), the co-author of the letter, has accepted over $3,000 from LCV and the Sierra Club, another group backed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. " What letter you might ask " A letter reportedly being circulated among a handful of Democrats this week in the U.S. House of Representatives, calling for an investigation into energy companies’ opinions on climate change, references news reports that the letter’s authors characterize as independent journalism. But according to online records, the reports were actually financed by large foundations that oppose oil and natural gas development. " wattsupwiththat.com... co/



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech

Also with regards to CO2, it's not only CO2 that creates the warming now is it, let's be honest there's plenty data that supports CH4 is a larger contributing factor to the climate issue than CO2, combine the 2 and it is bad for the climate but what's to say it is not part of a larger natural cycle ?


The climatologists who do it for a living certainly include many more influences than CO2. Go read the IPCC reports.
CH4 is more potent per molecule, but has a shorter lifetime in atmosphere.

It's believed that CO2 is still the largest single driving influence but others are important quantitatively.



what's to say it is not part of a larger natural cycle ?


Because coal mining and burning is an observational fact and not an unsupported hypothesis.

And because a natural cycle would have observable natural physics and data signatures and consequences and none of these have been seen in a way that matches current observations, whereas the influences from greenhouse gases added by mankind clearly matches the signatures in the observed data.


Is the sun warmer now than it was, say 100,000 years a go ?


Probably not, and certainly not in the recent period when we've seen significant global warming.

In any case, solar influences on climate do nothing to turn off the physics of other influences.


edit on 20-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
In reality, the correct analogy would be to compare adding more insulation to your home, which would keep the heat in better and use a similar amount of energy to keep it at a constant temperature of one degree higher. Hell, maybe even less energy.


Even that isn't quite right either because home insulation reduces heat loss by limiting conduction and convection between hot and cold. A greenhouse for growing plants does the same.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is "the atmosphere glows more in infrared, because outgoing infrared is intercepted and re-radiated in 360 degrees, and half of that is pointing back down."

The equilibrium temperature is hence higher than without the greenhouse effect. But since we're not at equilibrium yet---the Earth would continue to warm for decades/centuries even if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases were fixed---the total stored heat energy is also going up with time.

mc understands the physics just fine.


edit on 20-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Actually George Soros more so rather than Rockefeller along with funding from other big time political players. The political rhetoric and aims really affect the way the entire matter is perceived and its very concerning to see.

www.dailytech.com...


A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.

But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.


When a former pioneer in this body of research is making arbitrary modifications to their data you can absolutely expect that those following (who were raised up by them) will likely do the same.


The apocalyptic fears are hilarious though, as the Bible said 'As in the days of NOAA so shall they be in the coming of the son of man,' and its astonishing that C12 (6protons 6 neutrons 6 electrons, 98% of carbon on earth) is the driving sin that will drown us all in a flood if we don't turn from our sinful ways!


-insert nervous manic laughter

-FBB



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Untimely response, I know, but where did I try to catch you in gotcha moment?

Seriously...I didn't try, I was just correcting the analogy to be more appropriate without having any commentary whatsoever as to the validity of your argument.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Okay...but my analogy was much closer, barring the tiny details that make analogies appropriate without turning it into a dissertation on the finer points of physics.

I understand it just fine, as well. My point still stands--his analogy was bad. Just because someone understands something doesn't mean that they explain it perfectly all of the time. But in all honesty, we don't need a war on analogies--I never should have even cared enough to point out that his was bad. In the grand scheme of life, it isn't going to do anything anyhow, right?



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: bellagirl
You will never convince me....sorry.


You, personally, don't need to be convinced. It is happening and your children and grand children and great grand children will live the consequences.



at the rate we're going (with no major changes), none of us will have great grand children.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I'm not arguing climate change one way or another, but a year ago today, it was much colder than normal temperatures. The OP's current temperature holds as much importance in this argument as someone using a very cold day to argue the other way. If that makes any sense ...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join