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.

 

Yes, Global Warming is REAL, and it IS CAUSED by man. PROOF!

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Hello, thought I would go ahead and clear things up about the whole global warming debate once and for all.

Alright, so bear with me.

Here is an article talking about the effects of 100 nuclear bombs going off.

www.wired.com...

(that link sucks, here's another)

climate.nasa.gov...

Notice the link- nuclear war climate change.

Here is a youtube link of nuclear detonations of each nation:

www.youtube.com...

Important to note, the temperature globally drops.

1940's - 1970's - Global temperatures drop.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Ok, the first link, also mentions how nuclear detonations eat out the ozone layer. I remember in the 90's hearing about the 'hole in the ozone' over Australia. Look at the nuclear tests conducted and it should put things into perspective. Hair spray or nuclear bombs, which is responsible for the ozone destruction?

Now, the article then talks about how years after the detonations, temperatures will slowly creep back up, attempting to normalize.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, nuclear tests pretty much stopped.

www.jfklibrary.org...

The first link talks about drops in precipitation, then after the nukes are over, rainfall increases.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Also the UV light increases due to the nuclear bombing.

www.nasa.gov...

Notice how the article states that UV exposure stabilized in 90's, around the time the bombs stopped being tested.

So, now that we know that nuclear testing over the years, which caused an average temperature drop, and now that testing has ended, temperatures globally are on the rise, it is the Earth returning to equilibrium.

The articles talked about 100 hiroshima's, the tests conducted over the years has been in the thousands of hiroshimas.

So next time, and carbon global warmist starts spewing their idiocy: enlighten them on the true cause.

This article is a mess, I'm sure someone out there can make it more coherent, but the truth remains.




posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Ok, so global warmists who blame the carbon.

Is it really cow farts, or is it THIS!!




posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I just got out of a blizzard in New Mexico, in the middle of April, I'm going to need more proof.




posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

We're talking averages here, not outliers or anecdotes.

It may be longer for your area to recover, since a large portion of nuclear testing was conducted in your area.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I was under the impression more tonnage of conventional bombs were dropped than nuclear detonations in the past century. Wasn't it a mini-ice age during the Second World War before the tests in the desert? I'm under the impression that all the aircraft with the contrails almost a constant over the skys.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

So your timeline suggests that the Earth was fine and in equilibrium prior to the bomb testing. Then the bomb testing cooled the earth for a few decades and now that the testing is over the Earth is coming back to normal, to it's regular temperature. This is what I got from bearing with you. Is this what you are saying?
And if so, how does this explain the statistics of how things are warmer now then they were before the testing. There are reports out that say that things are warmer now than a century ago.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor
As usual, when someone puts the word PROOF in their title, there isn't any. And what about this...?
Climate Change Hoax...
PROOF it isn't real?



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

But but ,...look a squirrel ...

In that interview, Hansen admitted a couple of basic things that many people do not realize. So if you’re new to discussions of global warming and rising sea levels read on. First, global surface temperatures were warmer during the last interglacial than they are today. An interglacial is a period between ice ages. That will be news to many readers. How then, many will wonder, do we know for sure that the recent warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases since we’re still within the realm of natural variability? Of course the answer is: Climate models tell us so, even though those climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate as it existed in the past, as it exists now, and as it might exist in the future…climate models do not simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause global warming. Hansen’s second admission was sea levels were 6 to 9 meters (20 to 30 feet) higher during the last interglacial than they are today.
wattsupwiththat.com... a-levels-you-should-know/



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

We have changed the climate since the industrial revolution with all the particulates we pumped into the atmosphere , much carbon was produced and sent skywards , carbon in the atmosphere shielded us from some of the Suns radiation lowering temperatures , since the kyoto protocol we've been cleaning the atmosphere and so allowing temperatures to rise again.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The computer predictions for the nuclear exchange, are based on detonations over civilian population.
This predicts that large amounts of dust particulates would shoot into the atmosphere, severely dropping the temperatures. However, the testing conducted had major portions in the ocean, so no dust. So the drop in temperature is less severe, and the subsequent rise would be more pronounced.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

In all cases, the word proof, is synonymous with strong evidence.

"proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. "
www.google.com...=proof+definition



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Only idiots think our destruction and pollution have no effect on the environment and you can't dissuade them. They reject science and only cherry pick out of context to support their stupid views of ignorance.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex




We have changed the climate since the industrial revolution with all the particulates we pumped into the atmosphere , much carbon was produced and sent skywards
You do know that the oceans are a carbon sink and the trees take carbon from the air . Particulate matter like volcanoes usually comes back down eventually . I remember Mount Saint Helens putting ash on my car and I am on the east coast .Hard to say how much blew out to the Atlantic .



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

I appreciate the time and thought you put into your thread.

I don't think there is much doubt that past nuclear testing has changed the composition of Earth's atmosphere. It remains measurable. I also don't think very many people doubt that nuclear war or a multi-national nuclear exchange would be adverse to biological systems and the atmosphere.

The proponents of Global Warming (now called Climate Change) don't endorse nor disagree with your evidence. They endorse an anthopomorphic causation to climate change based upon studies, evidence and beliefs that greenhouse gasses -- caused by human activity -- are the sole source. The current villain is thought to be CO2, carbon-based Carbon Dioxide. A gas without which biology and humanity as we know it would not exist.

For me, it is problematic to attribute GW or CC entirely to nuclear testing, and even more problematic to characterize evidence as 'proof'.

For some GW/CC is a given and accepted. For some, the science and measurements/statistics are a bit contrary to the scientific method, occasionally employing confirmation bias. Sometimes an appeal to authority is employed. I have to wonder........ if it is all so obvious and not influenced by money or politics, why isn't everyone on board? Why do the computer models require frequent adjusting to reflect current data? Why is existing data of weather cycles not much taken into account?

I have no doubt whatsoever that wherever human beings have congregated, we have compromised the Earth, it's water, ground and atmosphere. We may be the only mammals besides bovines that defecate in their own nest. If we were to removal the TONS of money to be made by various governments and other entities, I think we could more closely arrive at a model and projection that would be more meaningful, and perhaps create a real strategy for reversing some of the damage done to our planet.

This is all, of course, just my opinion. I am not an expert on GW/CC and don't pretend to be.

Good thread.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Nuts. Global cooling and global warming over millions of years? Yep. Natural earth changes.

Now man's around does he affect it? Of course....so what? Move along.

Ice age is coming..like before and again with heat waves, hurricanes etc etc etc..

Next?



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
As the Brits are still having frosts in the middle of April, and their country is supposed to be kept warm by the Atlantic conveyor, (gulf stream) I'm not so sure, anyway, this planet has been warmer many times in the past, when there were no coal fired power plants, SUV's, or jet aircraft, so, I'll keep an open mind.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Y'know........ I kept passing by your comment, and this time around I feel the need to respond.

Interesting to me that you mention cherry-picking data. This isn't a partisan issue, however I think we could find a firm foundation for cherry-picking (or even intentionally skewing of data) on either "side".

As I said earlier, I doubt anyone believes that humans haven't screwed up our environment since the dawn of "civilization". I think it's a tad off-kilter to attribute a disbelieve in this with those who don't fully endorse the slippery slope of carbon credits. It doesn't do a service to anybody, imo, to attempt to cubbbyhole people who belief differently than you as "idiots" nor to attribute beliefs to "them" that most do not hold.

We are just talking. Your avatar resonates strongly with me, and I thought a person who also loves Bob Marley might enjoy a common perspective.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Hello, thought I would go ahead and clear things up about the whole global warming debate once and for all.

This article is a mess, I'm sure someone out there can make it more coherent, but the truth remains.


You're doing alright,
but look on the bright (non nuclear) side. Wev'e made a lot of erstwhile carrot pullers rich!


But never mind, at least we now know that Termites are king of the Earth's farters, not the Moo Moos....or did we know that already???



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Not just CO2 -- although that is profound -- but also methane.


kix

posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Its not man made is the sun:

images.remss.com...

Thank You

/end of thread



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join