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.


Global Warming!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 01:17 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
people say "natural climate change"

the problem is that natural climate change is relatively peaceful, and we're getting an increase in severe weather conditions.

says who? where are the records from before the last ice age or heat age? how can you say what happened as we only have fairly ACURATE records for the last hundred years or so?

that is why this "human caused global warming" scare is based on bad sciance. the TRUTH is we just DON"T KNOW what happened thousands of years ago with any real acuracy, what we have is just theories and suppositions.

the severe weather is nature's way of equalizing the climate, it happens naturally when there is a sudden meteorilogical shift, something that nature doesn't do on its own

how do we KNOW this for certain? where are the records about it from say a couple thousand years ago?

pumping billions of tons of carbon into the air is going to hurt the environment

i agree compleately. it DOES hurt the enviroment. plants, animals and even humans suffer from it.

there are glaciers that my great aunt used to visit in the rockies when she was a kid that are now lakes...

it is also true that apprently some desets were once lakes or ocians thousands mabe even millions of years ago. so whoe caused them to dry up? humans with no technoligy? mabe they broke a rock that allowed all the water to drain away.

if that isn't a sign of something being severly out of whack i don't know what is

yet again how do you know this? did god tell you about it?

[edit on 7-8-2006 by drogo]

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:19 PM
THe surface temperature in the Atlantic is 2 degrees cooler than last year. Because of this meteorologist and weather experts are modifying hurricane forcasts to suite a year of low hurrican quantity and intensity, compared to last year.

Global warming is not something that should be taken at its sensational face value. Because this time last year, everyone at ats was crying bloody murder because of Katrina. Emotions often get in the way of judgement, which is why I think some of you have horrible judgement.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:46 PM

Originally posted by drogo

yet again how do you know this? did god tell you about it?

[edit on 7-8-2006 by drogo]

It's called science drogo. We have good data going back several hundred thousand years. We know with a fair degree of assurance that the earth has been warmer, cooler, dryer, etc.. We don't know the details of the daily weather over North America, or Asia 100,000 or 200,000 years ago, but we certainly know the generalities of that weather. We even have a pretty good idea what it was like several hundred million years ago.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by Astronomer70]

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:52 PM
A new analysis of data from twin satellites has revealed that the melting of Greenland's ice sheet has increased dramatically in the past few years, with much of the loss occurring primarily along one shoreline potentially affecting weather in Western Europe.
Full story at

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:52 AM
Warming is truely a problem, and yes the earth does go though a natural cycle of warmer and colder, and I dont mean as in a couple of degrees. The last time the earth went through its natural stage of cold was...the last ice age.

Modern industry however has...sped up this "natural" cycle about tenfold, that means big problems of either warm OR cold.

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:22 PM
Anybody scanning this thread that is really interested in climate changes that may take place over the next few hundred years should read the attached link concerning abrupt climate changes.

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 11:00 PM

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[13] Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "none contradicted" the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in her work, writing

“ Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an additional two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming. (National Post, 17 May 2005) ”

In order to include only "hard science" papers rather than opinion pieces or editorials, Oreskes excluded the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and set the search to include only Articles, while Peiser searched for all document types in all indexes,[14][15] and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed.[16] In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further reference to his review, instead asserting,[17]

“ An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such thing. ”

Peiser also stated:

“ ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.[18] ”

Timothy Ball asserts that those who oppose the "consensus" have gone underground: "No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."(Canada Free Press, February 5, 2007)

Good scientists are under attack for speaking up to the agenda of the human caused global warming nazis.

The report did, however, contain two surprising facts. Both went unmentioned in most reports. First, the world's scientists have rejigged their estimates about how much sea levels will rise. In the 1980s, the US' Environmental Protection Agency expected oceans to rise by several meters by 2100. By the 1990s, the IPCC was expecting a 67cm rise. Six years ago, it anticipated ocean levels would be 48.5cm higher than they are currently.

In this year's report, the estimated rise is 38.5cms (a little over a foot) on average.

This is especially interesting since it fundamentally rejects one of the most harrowing scenes from Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth.

In graphic detail, Gore demonstrated how a 6m rise in the sea level would inundate much of Florida, Shanghai and Holland.

The IPCC report makes it clear that exaggerations of this magnitude have no basis in science -- though clearly they frightened people and perhaps will win Gore an Academy Award.

The report also revealed the improbability of another Gore scenario: that global warming could make the Gulf Stream shut down, turning Europe into a new Siberia.

The IPCC simply and tersely tells us that this scenario -- also vividly depicted in the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow -- is considered "very unlikely." Moreover, even if the Gulf Stream were to weaken over the centuries, this would be good, as there would be less net warming over land areas.

So why have we been left with a very different impression of the climate panel's report? The IPCC is by statute "politically neutral" -- it is supposed to tell us just the facts and leave the rest to politicians and the people who elect them. This is why the report is a careful and sensible document.

But scientists and journalists -- acting as intermediaries between the report and the public -- have engaged in greenhouse activism. Elsewhere calling for immediate and substantial cuts in carbon emissions, the IPCC's director even declared that he hoped the IPCC report would "shock people, governments into taking more serious action."

It is inappropriate for somebody in such an important and apolitical role to engage in blatant activism. Imagine if the director of the CIA published a new assessment of Iran, saying "I hope this report will shock people, governments into taking more serious action."

Climate change is a real and serious problem. But the problem with the recent media frenzy is that some seem to believe no new report or development is enough if it doesn't reveal more serious consequences and more terrifying calamities than humanity has ever considered before.

Indeed, this media frenzy has little or no scientific backing. One of England's foremost climatologists, Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, points out that green militancy and megaphone journalism use "catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons with which forlornly to threaten society into behavioral change."

In his words, "we need to take a deep breath and pause."

A 38.5cm rise in the ocean's levels is a problem, but by no means will it bring down civilization. Last century sea levels rose by half that amount without most of us even noticing.

IPCC, in their latest report, doesn't seem to be too concerned.

The UN tells us that there is virtually nothing we can do that would affect climate change before 2030. So we have to ask the hard question of whether we could do better by focusing on other issues first -- helping real people improve their lives and resilience so they can better deal with the world's challenges.

When Nobel Laureate economists weighed up how to achieve the most good for the world in a recent project called the Copenhagen Consensus, they found that focusing on HIV/AIDS, malaria, malnutrition and trade barriers should all be tackled long before we commit to any dramatic action on climate change.

With the world in a fury about cutting greenhouse gases, it is easy to forget that there are other and better ways to do some good for the planet. Good decisions come from careful consideration. The IPCC report provides that. But the cacophony of screaming that has accompanied it does not help.

By Bjorn Lomborg

Stop, stop, stop all the global warming dancing!

A recent find by solar scientists points out that the Sun's sunspot conveyor-belt has slowed to 1/4 it's normal speed. This means that global cooling will be prevalent after the solar maximum of 2022.

This means you'll have to listen to the "iceage is returning" activists after 2022.

A recent report by the Pentagon preparedness agency said there is more danger from global cooling than global warming. The senario they painted was ten times worse with 1.5 billion starving and a major nuclear war for resources.

[edit on 3/31/2007 by bodebliss]

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 05:15 PM
I wanted to include the link to the NASA article about the collapse of the sunspot conveyor-belt:

The strong temperature increase that followed the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago has melted enough ice to raise the global sea level by 120 meters (360 feet). The rate of rise was quite high at first, controlled by the rapid melting away of the ice sheets covering North America and the Eurasian land mass. These disappeared about 8,000 years ago; but then, as the sea level rose, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet(WAIS) continued to melt, albeit at a lower rate -- and it is still melting at about this rate today. The reason for the dramatic rise in sea level is it was at one of it's lowest ebbs in the last billion years at the end of the last ice age it has nowhere to go, but up.

Doesn't that make sense?

The principal conclusion is that this melting of the WAIS will continue for another 7000 years or so, unless another ice age takes over before then. In 15,000 years we should be well into the next ice age.

North America contributes only 25% of the human produced CO2 if we cut it down to nothing China and India would still be producing 50% of the increase from humans that we are seeing.

By 2050 we will need double the amount of energy we produce today to keep up with demand, and by 2100 quadruple the amount in use today and by 2150 8X the amount in use today.

How will we meet this demand? Will we say to the undeveloped and underdeveloped world, "we got ours, now you can't have any"? Will we have rolling blackouts across the world of 'One day on and 6 days off electricity'? The environmental extremists want us to go back to the cave. They don't offer alternatives. We have 6 billion people who want to taste modernity, what will we do? Will there be a mega-war for dwindling resources? Pollution in our fixed Earthly environment would tell us we can't burn all the fossil fuel we have. We will die of mercury poisoning.

There are three solutions that come to mind nuclear (we can bury the residue for as long as we need to), space-based solar (Moon or satellite), and if they ever perfect it fusion. We have an endless supply of fusion material in seawater .

We have 4,000 years worth of fissionable material in seawater.

These solutions could provide energy for thousands of years.

I don't want to go back to the cave and I'm not going to relinquish the future of mankind to the technology haters. I don't think wiping out 5.8 billion people would be right, either(as some suggest).

[edit on 4/7/2007 by bodebliss]

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:01 PM
To go along with bodebliss's comment about global cooling being prevalent after a certain point, I'd like to bring up a point too few people recognize (at least in my experience of global warming discussions) :

Global warming would release most of the ice on Greenland and in Antarctica into the oceans. I'm not certain of the exact mechanics, but this would intensify weather across the globe. Summers get hotter. Winters get colder. (I've found some people claiming that the snowfall in Baghdad evidences against global warming. It may or it may not. It may be a symptom of global warming, or it may be a freak weather occurrence.) Eventually, things begin to cool down, and the planet slips into another ice age.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in