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.
Isn't methane more damaging than Co2? And that is a byproduct of landfills and cows......
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: FyreByrd
Notes: Mother Jones is a politically progressive American magazine reporting on politics, the environment, human rights, and culture.
I stopped there.
Every other sane person did too.
I found this article in Mother Jones
Isn't methane more damaging than Co2? And that is a byproduct of landfills and cows......
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: pheonix358
Prior to human-induced global warming, climate changes were relatively slow over the course of hundreds to thousands of years.
More of the same crap.
Climate change is due to the fact that the ice will soon start growing. It is just a natural cycle.
Is man speeding it up? Don't know. The last time this happened it was about 110,000 years ago.
It is just the earth's cycle.
P
You keep ignoring the little red line off to the right whenever you post this chart.
originally posted by: ClovenSky
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: pheonix358
Prior to human-induced global warming, climate changes were relatively slow over the course of hundreds to thousands of years.
More of the same crap.
Climate change is due to the fact that the ice will soon start growing. It is just a natural cycle.
Is man speeding it up? Don't know. The last time this happened it was about 110,000 years ago.
It is just the earth's cycle.
P
You keep ignoring the little red line off to the right whenever you post this chart.
Reviewing that graph, why does the temperature (blue line) always seem to PRECEDE the red line (CO2) in both the elevations and falls?
I am sure that means something.....now what could that be?
originally posted by: YarlanZey
I believe that it is part of a very long, natural cycle.
originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Greven
What was observed through the graph was the CO2 cycle FOLLOWING the temperature cycle for thousands of years. CO2 does not cause a rise in temperatures but appears the CO2 increases because of higher temperatures.
How else would you interpret the graphs?
Because solar cycles and the relationship between CO2 and temperature are both involved, the precise pattern of global temperature fluctuations is complex. During warming parts of the record, the rise in temperature leads that of CO2 by about 800 years.
One reason this occurs is because when Croll/Milankovitch warming is initiated, the oceans take several enturies to respond fully and only as they warm is CO2 released which, in turn, warms the rest of the Earth. In such a complex coupled atmosphere–ocean –land system, it is to be expected that there will be leads and lags between different components and feedback effects amplifying or suppressing changes. Finally, the ice core records demonstrate that September 2011 levels of CO2 (389 ppmv; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2011) are higher than in previous interglacials.
originally posted by: YarlanZey
I believe that it is part of a very long, natural cycle.
When we talk about data, the only "recorded" data we have is for the last 250 years or so, which is not even a blip in the 4.5 billion years the earth's has been around. In her long life, the entire surface has been frozen twice and there were other climates than the one we know today.
Unfortunately the majority of the population are no longer wanderers and we have set our homes down on flood plains, places where there is coastal erosion, areas of long term drought, next to volcanoes and in earthquake zones. We have decimated forests which naturally filter water and soak it up. We are all dependant on businesses (where the goal is to make profit) to supply our food, water and energy.
In the 80s we had acid rain. In the 90s we had the hole in the ozone layer. Now in the 2000's global warming and now we have climate change. The "answers" to dealing with climate change are green taxes and carbon offsetting which tells me that the governments are not taking this seriously.
With films like Highlander 2 (solar shield) and The Knowing (solar flare destroys earth) to mention a few, you have to wonder if we are all being programmed (because isnt that what TV and films are really for?) Maybe our climate is getting out of control and we are heading for an ELE, but there is nothing that we can do about it. Disclosure would mean world-wide panic and chaos, so instead we are shown various scenarios including our own fate, told we are to blame and distracted with a solution.
originally posted by: stormcell
originally posted by: YarlanZey
I believe that it is part of a very long, natural cycle.
When we talk about data, the only "recorded" data we have is for the last 250 years or so, which is not even a blip in the 4.5 billion years the earth's has been around. In her long life, the entire surface has been frozen twice and there were other climates than the one we know today.
Unfortunately the majority of the population are no longer wanderers and we have set our homes down on flood plains, places where there is coastal erosion, areas of long term drought, next to volcanoes and in earthquake zones. We have decimated forests which naturally filter water and soak it up. We are all dependant on businesses (where the goal is to make profit) to supply our food, water and energy.
In the 80s we had acid rain. In the 90s we had the hole in the ozone layer. Now in the 2000's global warming and now we have climate change. The "answers" to dealing with climate change are green taxes and carbon offsetting which tells me that the governments are not taking this seriously.
With films like Highlander 2 (solar shield) and The Knowing (solar flare destroys earth) to mention a few, you have to wonder if we are all being programmed (because isnt that what TV and films are really for?) Maybe our climate is getting out of control and we are heading for an ELE, but there is nothing that we can do about it. Disclosure would mean world-wide panic and chaos, so instead we are shown various scenarios including our own fate, told we are to blame and distracted with a solution.
Acid rain was related to the iron, steel and coal plants in Eastern Europe. The soot from those plants would act as a condensation nucleii for snow in the UK. Once they were shut down or had more improved pollution controls, the UK had less snow. It could also be that UK cities have become larger so that the heat island affect now acts as force fields blocking bands of cold weather. I see the weather satellite pictures of cloud and the bands of snow and rain are forced in between Birmingham and London. Flying from the air, I'd see open fields covered in snow while the local towns and villages are snow free.
The amount of sunlight reaching our planet is constant. The amount of strong sunlight reaching the warm equatorial regions is the same. Same with the North and South poles. What changes is the way the two interact through ocean currents and the jet stream. It's thought the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional overturning circulation) ocean current is slowing down.
www.npr.org...
Measurements from the 1960s to the early 1990s, backed up by a wide range of data and a number of independent studies, showed there were substantial declines in the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Earth's surface.
This reduction is known as "global dimming".
The observed "dimming" has strong regional differences across the globe. While the southern hemisphere saw modest dimming in the period 1961–90 (which has continued to date), the northern hemisphere saw much more significant declines (reductions of 4–8%).
Since then some parts of the world, such as Europe and North America, have seen partial recovery (known as "brightening"), while other regions (most notably China and India) have seen further although regionally mixed declines.
Global dimming is not thought to be due to changes in the sun's luminosity, as these have been too small to explain the magnitude of dimming observed.
Instead, air pollution from human activity is thought to be the major contributor. Aerosols which form from pollution can directly reflect and absorb radiation before it reaches the planet's surface and make clouds brighter and longer lasting, meaning they reflect more sunlight.
Measurements from the 1960s to the early 1990s, backed up by a wide range of data and a number of independent studies, showed there were substantial declines in the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Earth's surface.
There have been found fissures on the ocean floor spewing methane into the water, contributing to the rise in water temp.