It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


This years weather.. abnormal

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 11:32 PM
I'm not so sure we should just explain this away as normal. Perhaps it is a cycle, but we have also damaged earth and polluted it. Just in case, I think we ought to seriously look at how we are going to repair planet earth. We have soil now that is depleted and grows less nutrional fruits and vegetables. Go ahead and take a bite into that bag of apples at the grochery store, mmm tasty wet paper, delicious. That's only one of our problems, what happens when the population continues to rise. Don't explain what is happening away. You've got birds that are confused. I know the media can sensationalize things, but that doesn't negate the facts. What are we going to do about this mess?


posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:30 AM
Actually, people through crop science and agricultural education, the US has developed some of the best ways to manage food production in the world. We don't deplete our soils and then move on to deplete others. We've learned that rotating crops with give and take opposite nutrients and planting cover crops through non-seasonal months allow the most efficient use of land per acre than anywhere else in the world.

A quick look back in history will show that we don't even come close to living in the most dynamic period in Earth's climate..not even in the last 1000 years of Earth's Climate.

We also will find that most reports of rising temps actually come from a prediction of a computer model and that real-time data from satelittes and weather balloons do not match this.

There have been numerous times in the past when Earth's Climate has been warmer and colder than present by a good degree. No one knows yet just what mechanisms guide it but its suspected that several combined do it.

One important fact that the global warming crowd will have you believe is that the rise in CO2 caused the warming when in reality, it actually gradually rose in response to a 300 year warming trend after the end of the last "Littel Ice Age". Warmer Earth means less Ice and more production of CO2 by inhabitants. We villify CO2 without much knowledge of its actual use in our atmosphere. See my blog

That tells us this is no more true than the steam above a boiling pot causing the cavitation.

Now, from this, I guess you have all branded me an enemy of the environment but that is as far from true as one could get. I have been an active community member in cleaning up illegal dumps, straight piped sewers, livestock run-off and chemicial dumping. See, there are true environmental concerns and true enemys of the environment. However discerning between those that are developed merely as a political weapon and those which are valid is a bit of a challenge given the way our media whores itself and the way politicians seem to get to add their own little message to climate studies.

True, we do have a an air pollution problem around major metro areas. (Dust Domes) We even see a raised albedo affect from so much pavement but its localized. I can see perfectly well why California is enacting pollution control regulations because they have a local problem with air quality.

However, to use a computer model as a scare tactic when most of the scientific community (myself included) is well aware of the actual data is bound to catch up them sooner or later just as the scare tactic used years ago that brought about the theory of eugenics.

A popular scientific theory that ushered in an age of suffering by the human race rarely seen before or since. A theory that then, held the merit of many world leaders and the scientific community. A theory then more widely accepted than global warming is today. A theory which was later known to have been founded on flawed science and political agendas. Sound familiar?

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:03 PM
i live in Rockford, Illinois which is in the northern part of the state. and sometimes we get rained on for days in the spring and summertime. Granted I do live in tornado alley but still. Lots of places get that much rain. I don't think that it is that abnormal. Like another poster may seem strange if you look at it in comparison to the last 10 years but on a larger scale weather patterns are constantly changing, and some areas have more of a consistant weather pattern for longer periods of time, however, 20-50 years ago California could have have a record of having that much rain or even more. I wouldn't get all freaked out over 2 feet of rain. Now if california gets so flooded that it breaks off into the Pacific ocean ....then i would start to worry..until then, grab and umbrella and keep singing.

Kind regards,


posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by astrocreep
There have been numerous times in the past when Earth's Climate has been warmer and colder than present by a good degree. No one knows yet just what mechanisms guide it but its suspected that several combined do it.
It's true that we don't know all from climate.
So I would say it's best to avoid messing with it... or would you point loaded pistol with round in the chamber to your head and start pulling trigger without knowing when it goes off?

One important fact that the global warming crowd will have you believe is that the rise in CO2 caused the warming when in reality, it actually gradually rose in response to a 300 year warming trend after the end of the last "Littel Ice Age". Warmer Earth means less Ice and more production of CO2 by inhabitants.
It just happens to be that most of CO2 increase has happened after industrial revolution.

And I happened to hit to one interesting site about transportation... althought some years old there's still good points about future's cars.
And this one:
From the last ice age until the industrial revolution in the last century (~10,000 years), the atmospheric level of CO2 had varied only about 5%. But beginning with the industrial revolution and projecting forward to 2030, the amount of atmospheric CO2 will have doubled - all in about 150 years time.

Given all the new ice core data, what changes can we anticipate for our climate? If CO2 has increased over the past 150 years as much as it normally increases over thousands of years leading up to an interglacial phase (about 80 ppmv)...

The multinational team reported its findings in the June 3 issue of the journal Nature.
Petit and colleagues found carbon dioxide levels rose from about 180 parts per million during each ice age's height to 280-300 ppm in the subsequent warm periods -- far below the current CO2 levels of 360 ppm.
Methane levels, meanwhile, rose from 320-350 parts per billion during the icy interludes to 650-770 ppb during the warm spells. Current methane levels are 1,700 ppb.

The lessons from the Vostok ice core can be summarized as follows. Past changes in greenhouse gases have been initially triggered by climatically induced changes in the oceanic and terrestrial pools or reservoirs of carbon Changes in these pools of carbon resulted in the amplification of the original weak, orbitally-driven changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. Once in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases then played an important role as amplifiers of climate change, accounting for about half of the global warming observed in the Vostok ice core, corresponding to the four glacial-interglacial (cold-warm) climate transitions. The main difference between the Vostok record of climate change and the present climate situation is that today the sharp increase in greenhouse gases (i.e., approaching unique levels of greenhouse gas concentrations relative to the last 420,000 years of climate change) is being triggered by human activities at an unprecedented rate. In addition, ice-core records (and other records) of past climates indicate that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases, whatever the causes, induce important global climatic changes. By comparison, society's impact on the concentration of greenhouse gases during the last 150 years has already enhanced the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by an amount equivalent to the glacial-interglacial CO2 increases documented in the Vostok ice-core records described above.

I find it ironical that government/some people of certain country kinda accused other countries "burying their heads to the sand" concerning "threat" caused by Hussein and now it's same government which want's to supress discussion about changes in climate and "bury head to the sand".

Or maybe it's this:
Whether or not people do something about global warming is more of a human nature issue than a political issue. If you look at human behavior, we tend to deal better with crises then to proactively change before the situation escalates to an emergency. But if there's no choice, humans are capable of huge changes.
Here in Ohio we have the Cuyahoga River that everyone knew was polluted. But it wasn't until it caught on fire that people realized, Hey, this is a crisis, and we probably ought to do something about it.
Now the river's been cleaned up, so that even walleye, pike, and game fish can live in it. It wasn't that we couldn't take care of the problem sooner. It was that we didn't have to do it sooner.

What role does human activity play in global warming?
The atmosphere of the Earth is like a blanket that traps heat. It keeps the temperature at the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, which is great because it makes the world a pleasant place to live. But humans have been adding to the gases that help trap this heat.

We've been adding to the stock of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by taking coal, oil, and natural gas out of the ground and burning them as fuels. Combined with deforestation, this has raised the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about one-third since pre-industrial times.

And what does this do the welfare of the Earth?
If you think of an automobile engine—when you step on the accelerator, the engine speeds up because you're putting more energy into it by increasing the fuel flow, so everything runs harder and hotter and faster. The extremes get more extreme.

That's what's happening with the climate. We're stepping on the accelerator by adding greenhouse gases to the climate and increasing heat energy in the system.

Certainly the climate has, to some extent, a mind of its own. But that's not to say we're not having an influence on what the climate is, what it does, and how it behaves.
We've taken a great deal of carbon that used to be locked up in the Earth in the form of coal and undisturbed oil and natural gas and released it into the atmosphere. That carbon hadn't been there in the atmosphere for millions and millions of years.
It's simply naive to think that's not going to have an effect on the climate.

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:25 PM
Well, just to add to the confusion, here in the new england states we are just cleaning up from a storm that dropped about 6 - 12 inches of snow's supposed to reach 60 degrees.

New england usually doesn't see this kind of weather, EVER...IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER!!?? Somethings goin' on here...all I can say is....
What in the hell...??

[edit on 1/12/2005 by jeepin4x4girl]

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:51 AM
"I find it ironical that government/some people of certain country kinda accused other countries "burying their heads to the sand" concerning "threat" caused by Hussein and now it's same government which want's to supress discussion about changes in climate and "bury head to the sand". "

they're to busy worrying about the smokers killing them is all....they'll worry about their cars and industry after they get rid of the smokers!!

if the weather changes are ever undeniably connected to the co2 levels, well, the official line will probably be that it was the co2 from the smokers that offset the balance......

sorry, couldn't help but let some of the sarcasm out of the box. if the research into global warming and the health effects of pollution is bogus-(they're now finding that the smog in the big cities is causing the kid's lungs not to grow properly)- well, why should we view anything the scientific community says seriously, like the harmful effects of shs? aren't they just picking and chosing their poisons here.

it might be normal for some small areas of the country to have these big fluctuations in temperatures occuring quickly and often. I assure you, it isn't for the central NY area and probably most of the country. It's predicted to go up to the lower or mid 60's today, and them be snowing tommorrow, and well, in the next couple days, it's susposed to get really cold...
Even if it's not our pollution, and it's just a cycle. the sooner we acknowledge that there is something amiss, and that mother nature has decided that she's not gonna be as kind to us as she was, well, maybe the sooner all those rich idiots who have rebuilt their million dollar mansions in the same place after the last two or more hurricanes or floods, or whatever, will decide to go build someplace safer. the sooner our government will decide that our homes and buildings should have a little more to them. ect. heck, the sooner they will ban the stupid mobile homes like the one I live in that will blow away in a real good wind! Heck, it might save a insurance company or two.....that should be enough motivation for this adminsitration to act!

[edit on 13-1-2005 by dawnstar]

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:16 AM

Originally posted by E_T
It just happens to be that most of CO2 increase has happened after industrial revolution.

But, it just so happened most of the warming happened before the industrial revolution. Todays actual data is in fact, showing a slight cooling trend in the atmosphere with most ground temps raising only near large metros do to the amount of asphault. Its called a lower albedo affect because less heat is reflected back. Still with the higher ground temps say in New York, we look 2 hours away to Albany and find the opposite. How could that be? I suspect it has both to do with the amount of industrialization but more so with the inherent error in measuring temperature over time.

As for the ice core data, a recent study which looked at ice cores and put it together with just about every other climate study done to date shows just the opposite of your claim. I might as well put this in my sig, I've quoted it so many times.

See, what many of you fail to realise is that much of the data you report as actual data is merely data as it was predicted by a computer model now over 20 years old. Well, we have temp and CO2 data for that period and we now have sea level data as well...and many in the GW political crown wish we did not.

My concern is for the apparent dissapointment and failure to recognize the problem or lack thereof and turn resources toward our true environmental concerns. We now have monitoring devices in place and studies underway to continue this effort. Why must we continue to push for the halt of progress and try to hurt our economies? The biggest threat to the environment has always been poverty and we still see it today. The fact that numerous villages in Africa are starving and cannot afford the technology to clean their water once they make it dirty is somehow romanced into what we should all be striving to accomplish. Like I have said many times before. Its easy to make that decision for someone else sitting in a penthouse apartment with plenty.

The most modern and wealthy countries have the best looked after environment because we now have time to turn toward it. How many of us would be worried about the study of grasslands or timber harvests if we had empty stomachs or pains we could not remedy?

No. Speaking as a former member of the enviromental left, we must put aside politics and let science guide us in our actions. We also must realize that many people have no idea just how important CO2 is to our atmosphere and with slightly increased levels, we are likely to start seeing more plankton growth in oceans and a slow to dessertification. However, mankind still today accounts for very little of the CO2 released.

And if you'll notice your graph, you'll see in each case the warming trend preceeded the rise in the levels of CO2. Thats only to be expected. It makes sense. We are seeing a natural warming and the result is a rise in CO2 levels. Something we would likely see, according to your graph, whether humans were here or not.

I did like you clip about the river in Ohio catching fire. I think cleaning up streams air quality, and dumps which pollute soil should be our first priority. I'm not against new and cleaner forms of energy and in fact believe they have purposfully been stopped by the oil industry. But, I that still doesn't mean I need accept this global catastrophe scenario nor that we need it to see localized dangers.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by astrocreep]

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 08:48 AM
The weather's just a bit abnormal.
It's 12°C here in Toronto, in January.

It feels like spring!
What sucks is tomorrows supposed to go down to -4°C so we'll have nice slick roads and sidewalks tomorrow!

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:28 AM
I think you might have something there. I read the reports from last year about an asteroid passing close which you linked too. I have no reason to think such an occurance could very well trigger climate reprocisions as well as have noticable effects on the Earth's magnetic alignment causing earthquakes. I don't want to send everyone running in a planet X panic by any means. If we did have a close pass by an object large enough to disrupt it, one would think we would have been notified or seen it ourselves. Thats because we all think the earth is much smaller than it is. Not everything that happenes about the cloud cover and ionosphere is readily known or seen by us. We are just now learning about sprites and other forms of lightening no one had dicsovered yet they have been happening above us for eons.

Good research and a good premise.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in