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.

 

Global warming put into perspective. It's Bologna

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

I'm thinking more the latter than the former.


I think that is too easy an answer...doesn't take much to put us right back into a mini ice age, so I think humans are tiny in the big picture of it all.




posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




doesn't take much to put us right back into a mini ice age

Yeah. Maybe we'll have a series of very violent volcanic eruptions.

Maybe well get really lucky and have a comet hit us. That'll cool things down.

In the meantime, the CO2 keeps warming things up.


edit on 10/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Aallanon

You know, all you deniers are going to be seen in the future as not only stupid but also as evil.

You will be reviled as very stupid folks who ignored the science and sided with crass oil and coal industry for no good reason except to agree with the political masters of your time. You will be viewed in the same light as those who supported slavery, those who said women should not vote, and those who supported the international global power of oil.

You descendents will claim you were voting for states rights, or some such nonsense, to avoid the embarrassment of your ignorance. You will be hated, as the generation that bought into to lies told to you by your global masters, and your graves will be dedicated by your childern.

You have chosen your path, and you have announced your beliefs. The internet never goes away. You are doomed by your statements. They will seem as terribly wrong in 50 years as the defenders of slavery seem today. When your grandchildren curse your names in 20 years, find comfort that you lived in a time when you could still promote some disbeilief. Your time is growing short, and the judgement of future generations is about to fall upon you.

I pity you apologist for global oil and continued enslavement.

Enjoy.


Show us one climate model that has been correct since 1995.. Ice free arctic by 2008 Oops 2013 Oops Oops Oops.. They always claim we just have 10 year to save the planet.. Then Oops another 10 years...

As far as the gentleman in the video being paid by the energy sector.. A guy has to eat and fund research.. Just like the scientist who play ball with the NWO get funded; do you honestly think the NWO will pay someone to argue with them ? All the wringing hands of the west never mention China and India are building 1630 coal fired powered plants presently or have plans.. listen at the 4:00 minute mark..youtu.be...

He says it much better than I can.. 25 out of 25,000 climate scientist does not make a consensus .. Polar bears have increase population in spite of indigenous hunters.. Sea ice has not disappeared (2013 was the last date for the disappearance) as promise by the much vaulted computer models that were junk to begin with and have not improved at all as far as their forecasting ability..
youtu.be...


youtu.be...


There are two other videos so for those interested take a look.. For those whose minds are made up don't waste your time..

While the Arctic has lost almost 30% of its' record high ice it is now above the 2012 low. The NW passage is closed (October 18th) due to ice while the NE passage is open. As I have said the forecast was for the arctic to be ice free by 2013 and that was after the forecast it would be ice free in 2008. Same people saying the ice would be gone along with the polar bears yet people have short term memories when it come to prior forecast of where the people and your taxes only have 10 years to save the world . They have been saying ten years basically since this stuff started.. I guess because they believe the masses have loss their short term memories ?
youtu.be...


While the Arctic has lost almost 30% of its' record high ice it is now above the 2012 low. The NW passage is closed (October 18th) due to ice while the NE passage is open. As I have said the forecast was for the arctic to be ice free by 2013 and that was after the forecast it would be ice free in 2008. Same people saying the ice would be gone along with the polar bears yet people have short term memories when it come to prior forecast of where the people and your taxes only have 10 years to save the world . They have been saying ten years until the time passes so they just tack on another 10 years.



Sorry a little historical data that does not agree with the IPCC



The good/bad news is the winters from here on out are going to be record breaking cold and snow if the Maunder minimum folks are correct.. Australia is in for a major drought that is supposedly going to last while there wheat production is going to crater just as much of the rest of the world... If any of this is wrong we will know by 2025 which way the temps are heading and the argument will be settled except for the die hard Klingons..

I will make a personal forecast that the ice cover at the poles will increase during the winter and decrease during the yearly melt phase. How much of a melt off is a worthy question that I do not know the answer to.. But I do know it ain't ice free as we were told it would be 5 years ago in 2013. But disregard that prior forecast for it does not fit into the faith of man made global warming and the IPCC new and bigger, better computer models..

Also just for a little information.. Around 56 million years ago the planet was an average of 8 degrees C warmer. That is when there were ferns and all kinds of vegetation in Siberia and the Arctic. That is also the time you could find turtles and crocodiles all the way to way way north. Monkey's developed forward facing eyes and hands for grasping .Where it really sucked back then was in the ocean where around the equator the ocean temps could get as high as 36 C. Look it up..
People who want to live in a static world without change had better start working on their super humidity/climate controlled space station which is seriously shielded from the sun..

The Russian model mentioned in the Ops first video on climate is the only model that actually reflects what can be scientifically measured . People in the field making real measurements etc etc instead of feeding their models with crap and expecting truth to come out the other end..

Yet we don't need no stupid Russian science regardless !

Find someone with more credentials than the Ops guy in the original video who says the climate alarmist are nothing but alarmist with no actual science to back them up; only flawed models: FLAWED MODELS WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN RIGHT !
youtu.be...





edit on 727thk18 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky


www.realclimate.org...
edit on 10/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: weirdguy




It seems to be mostly natural in my opinion,

What's causing it, in your opinion?
Is the Sun getting hotter?
. I don't know, you're ancient you tell me.



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: weirdguy

Am not ancient.

But since you asked so nicely, increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing radiative forcing. In other words, less infrared radiation is escaping to space. More heat is being retained.

Here's a very simplified way of approaching it. Carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) prevent long wave infrared radiation from escaping into space. It absorbs, then re-emits infrared radiation.

Think about it like flipping a coin. There is a 50% chance that a given CO2 molecule will re-emit infrared radiation into space instead of back to Earth. Let's say we don't have any coins. No CO2 in the atmosphere. Outgoing radiation just keeps on going out. 100% of it. Earth's atmosphere is very cold.

Now let's add one "coin" worth of CO2. What happens? 50% chance that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer because the amount of radiation leaving is no longer the same as the amount of radiation incoming. Half of it is coming back to the surface.

Now let's add another "coin". What happens? With 2 coins the odds are 75% that you'll get at least one tail. Earth gets warmer still.

With 3 coins the odds are 87% that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer still.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more radiation will be re-emitted downward. But, you say, more will also be re-emitted upward. But more cannot be re-emitted upward. To understand why, go back to the no coin situation. The amount of escaping radiation cannot increase beyond 100% but the amount of returning radiation can increase from 0% and does. When 100% of the energy escapes, its cold. When 90% escapes it's a bit warmer. When 75% escapes it's warmer still. When the balance (where ever it may be) changes, the temperature of the Earth changes. Increasing GHGs is one thing that changes the balance.

Another thing that changes the balance would be the amount of solar energy which reaches the surface. The Sun getting hotter would do that, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Changes in Earth's tilt and orbit can do that, but that doesn't seem to be happening either. CO2 fits the bill and there doesn't seem to be anything else that accounts for it. So, apart from arm waving about "unknown variables", whatcha got?

edit on 10/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 02:22 AM
link   
All of this is about cycles which repeat...It really is simple for those who know what to study..

In 985 Greenland was so lush and green that is how it got its' name. Not 300 years later all the farmers had left because it was to darn cold.

I have not seen anyone saying climate is not changing that is what it does as history can show.

youtu.be...


youtu.be...


The scientist who were scheduled to leave Antarctica this month (October) are still stuck due to early severe storms. Also regardless of what some may think the ice is not disappearing there.

Everyone better hope we are entering a period of global warming for if it is going to be global cooling there will be millions if not billions who will perish.

an oldie but a goodie with actual historical records.... youtu.be...


I seem to remember someone saying the Earth has warmed .8 C in the last 132 years.. I would expect that is probably correct as we have been coming out of the mini ice age for the last 200 years. youtu.be...



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky




In 985 Greenland was so lush and green that is how it got its' name.

Actually, it got its name because Eric knew something about advertising.
thornews.com...

While it's true Greenland was settled during what is known as the medieval warm period, it was not forested or green, in general. But you could grow enough to survive.



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Exactly. Thats my opinion on climate change as well. Carbon credits are the biggest scam in th4 history of the world, and were supposed to be the basis of the one world currency.



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna




Carbon credits are the biggest scam in th4 history of the world,
Really? I thought that was the Federal Reserve.


and were supposed to be the basis of the one world currency.
Really? I thought that was the petrodollar.


In any case, cap and trade seems to have worked pretty well with SO2 emissions, without costing anyone a lot of money. But maybe CO2 is different. For some reason.

edit on 10/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
blog.heritage.org...

The latest case in point comes from United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer. In a recent interview with Germany’s NZZ Online, Edenhofer lays out just what the climate talks are all about:

NZZ: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

NZZ: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Edenhofer: Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet—and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400—there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.



Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

This shouldn’t be all too surprising. The Copenhagen conference last year quickly devolved from a discussion on how to cost-effectively curtail greenhouse gas emissions—the primary culprit behind global warming, according to the U.N.—into a browbeating session designed to get developed countries to accept massive economic costs arising from carbon dioxide cuts and to provide billions of dollars in wealth transfers (up to $100 billion annually was discussed in Copenhagen last year) to help developing nations cope with the projected consequences of a changing climate. Meanwhile, developing countries (even the large developing country emitters like India and China) were being exempted from emissions restrictions even though that would undermine any possibility of meeting emissions targets.

Last year in Copenhagen, Janos Pasztor, the director of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Climate Change Support Team, admitted: “This is not a climate-change negotiation. … It’s about something much more fundamental. It’s about economic strength.” The nations at the negotiation, he added, “just have to slug it out.”

It goes to show how ill-suited the United Nations is at handling a climate treaty. The competing interests of U.N. member states make it extremely difficult to for the negotiations not to get sidetracked.

Nothing has changed since Copenhagen except another 10/20 years has been added onto, "We are all doomed, send money quickly and we will save you" !

A total transparent wealth distribution scheme .. Australia got on the green band wagon early with wind and solar.. The citizens now pay more for their electricity than someone in N.Y. City.. Gas to cook and heat is just as bad... In the meantime there are over 2 billion people who cook with cow dung or charcoal every frigging day... Give me one or two C and the planet and mankind will be just fine.. Let me show you some catastrophic climate change. For about a 550 year period between about 1300 -1850. Longer, colder more bitter winters. Shorter Springs, Summers and Autumns. Shorter growing seasons, failed harvests, famine and disease. I personally think warming a bit since 1850 has been a good deal..

Someone always says there is a consensus on AGW.. The stated consensus (2013 paper by Cook) was that 97% agreed global warming was caused by man which is totally false unless you want to listen to the UN or IPCC and their propaganda. The real 97% say climate change is REAL and has been happening since earth coalesced. There are many factors which contribute to any warming presently going on. CO2 follows temperature increases. As more CO2 enters the atmosphere from the warming oceans and other sources.. Others usually say, one major volcano going off can produce more CO2 output than man can in 100 years...That is a true statement however they have not figured out a way to tax a volcano yet..just wait for it I suppose..youtu.be...

It is all about cycles and I will hold on to that belief until something better comes along or explains to me how it was warmer when Rome flourished .. Those legionnaires must have been full of some kind of global warming gas, no?

They got away from global warming and climate change in case you are unaware... It is now called climate disruption which is a great catch all.

So we can all believe, "Not to be an alarmist, BUT WE'RE ALL DEFINITELY GONNA DIE" folks or you can look at the real temperature records over Earth's history (yep it takes a little time) OR... as they want you to do, just sit back and parrot the fiddled numbers and beg for their world wide tax scheme .
The force of socialism is strong with the AGW group and their masters.. Said in my best Darth Vader voice
58 million years ago the Earth's average temperature was 8 degrees centigrade warmer. It was so warm that around the equator the ocean temperatures could get as high as 36C. It was a big bad deal for creatures in the equatorial ocean while those on land flourished in places like Siberia and the Arctic circle which was ice free. There are fossils of turtles and even alligators found today if you can get through all the ice. Also that is the time frame where mammals got a big kick start to include monkey's with their forward facing eyes.. So... Warming ain't all that bad..

Back to the 97%... it is actually 99.4% agree that humans must have SOME effect on earth's climate.. That does not mean they agree that All of Earth's warming trend is man made ie AGW. youtu.be...

Instead of the science this whole thing IMO has developed into climate ideology instead of real climate science... without fiddled numbers as another thread here at ATS showed there would be no alarm just a normal cycle that has repeated for eons.. If anyone cares to look at the Temperature records for 1935/36 that was the hottest year on record for the states .. yet we continually hear THIS year is the hottest year on record.. B.S>

Excuse me I have to stop now as the wife has grilled chicken and shrimp outside with charcoal.. Do I feel guilty ? Let me think about it after I eat !
edit on 727thk18 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Sorry, too much gishgalloping. Pare it down a bit if you actrually want a discussion.
edit on 10/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: JasonBillung

You forgot to call everyone nazis. #orangemanbad



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

It's not an opinion. It's science.

I love climate change deniers. Just look at that guy who is speaking, and what he's saying, and on the news station he's saying it on! FOX! not only a MSM outlet, but an extremely biased one at that. This mans history is filled with oil in his pockets, just like the scientists who were paid to say saturated fat causes heart disease, and smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

But hey, lets just ignore that the ice caps have been breaking off in massive chunks and melting, or that Siberia has been having massive thaws and releasing massive amounts of methane gas, or that Venice and many islands are sinking. Or that you know global temperatures are rising.



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 05:16 AM
link   
These are the slides that changed America's and Trump's view on AGW youtu.be...



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Venice is sinking it's not sea levels rising, it has always been sinking, it's built on mud. Must you believe everything you read

I live on the coast, 50 years and I have seen not one cm of the waters rising anywhere
Outside of a spot that had a marina built nearby, everyone said it was global warning, even the media but it was obvious the marina caused the problem

Venice is sinking, it is actually sinking because it's built on mud.
I guess the Pizza Tower leaning is caused by global warming as well



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




I live on the coast, 50 years and I have seen not one cm of the waters rising anywhere

Congratulations, you live in a place where the ground is uplifting.

I wish I did. Sadly, my yard is being devoured by the ocean.


edit on 10/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well caught, I live on an island, it must be floating, hence why the water never rises
My dear country, Ballonia



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I live on an island too. I've been living in this house for more that twenty years (and on this bay for most of my life). I am a boater and I pay close attention to the tides. High tides are higher and low tides are higher and my yard is going away because the high tides are coming over my seawall more and more often.

Anecdotal, yes. But it seems to match well with the overall trend.



posted on Oct, 25 2018 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The overall trend of what? natural erosion? that has happened since human history can remember

Water erodes, look at the Grand Canyon, it was once a trickle, where has the land gone

Tides claim land, volcanoes create land, it's how it's always been

No sea wall will ever keep water out unless you repair it all the time
It's nature, it has always been natural

And what trend, I don't see a trend, you claim it with your (wait for it) Gish gallop arguments
Trend, yeah right, what trend

I spelt Baloonia wrong, I spelled it Balonia, well spell check stuffed up, it's really Baloonia. Great place until we let them refo kids in with needles, they let us down

So you have erosion problems then, you get that on the coast




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join