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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Global cooling...

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2003 @ 02:12 AM
Why do people constantly talk about global warming when in reality its getting colder. We had devastating floods and cold weather here in central europe last summer, this summer was not much better, now we had snow in the middle of freakin october, normaly it doesnt snow till december here. My ass is freezing in the morning when I go to work, last winter was very cold too.

Am I missing something? When is it going to get warmer?

posted on Oct, 29 2003 @ 02:46 AM
dude where in the middle of the biggest drought EVER in Australia and I can tell ya it #IN HOT

posted on Oct, 29 2003 @ 08:13 AM
The fact is Earth has a static climate which is affected by many things the least of which is CO2 which is being blamed for everything from Global climate problems to the Cub's curse but the truth is CO2 is a required element in our atmosphere and the slight 300 year warm-up actually preceeded the rise in CO2 as it has in the past and its a scientifically valid relationship between the two. Once climate warms up, more foliage grows which burns or is eaten by animals. The warming oceans release more of their CO2 which is most likely the biggest contributor but CO2 is not the cause but merely the result. Higher levels of CO2 mean richer plant life, more moisture in the atmosphere and slowing deforestation and dessertification. The earth's climate has been globally 10 degrees warmer just before the little Ice Age at the end of the middle ages and at many other times in the past. The theory of global warming is nothing more than a political tool based more in politics than science and discounts 99% of the data and concentrates on the 1% that halfway supports it's basis. Global Warming Theory was really nothing more than a computer generated model which runs independant to actual high atmosphere observations and do not cooberate the theory. When you here an activist quote data, he or she is merely quoting a model which must be followed to support their theory. In the last 20 years technology has allowed us to see that actual high atmosphere temps haven't risen and only a small rise in surface temp has been detected and linked to other geophysical properties of influence like the sun and the earth's inner molten mass which destroys and rebuilds the crust above the athenosphere regularly. Politics and science don't mix, people. Research should be done unbiased to get a true value, not searching through tons of data which doesn't support your hypothesis for the ounce that can be messaged into supporting it.

Okay, off the soapbox..

posted on Oct, 29 2003 @ 12:42 PM
Global Warming and Cooling are both theories. Here is an interesting slide on how Human emmisions affect the climate. from
IPCC, Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change

posted on Oct, 29 2003 @ 01:00 PM
My theory is the Earth climate should be cooling, but the "greenhouse gases" we have added have stopped it from happening or at least being apparent. Maybe us Humans can prevent the next ice age if we keep pumping GG into the atmosphere.
It should be noted that some chemicals we put into the air theoretically can cause a colling effect as you can see on the graphic above.

posted on Oct, 29 2003 @ 06:53 PM
Has anyone ever thought that we are just reterning to the state before the ice age hit. Before the ice age hit there wernt really any land with frozen ice on it? Just something to take into account because you cant just blame global warming all on CO2 and us.


posted on Oct, 29 2003 @ 06:57 PM
Earth changes are a result of the wave and the approaching dark star.

We have also contributed to the problems with pollution but on a small scale.

posted on Oct, 30 2003 @ 05:30 PM

Originally posted by THENEO
Earth changes are a result of the wave and the approaching dark star.

We have also contributed to the problems with pollution but on a small scale.

What dark star do you speak of?


posted on Oct, 30 2003 @ 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Dagger
Has anyone ever thought that we are just reterning to the state before the ice age hit. Before the ice age hit there wernt really any land with frozen ice on it? Just something to take into account because you cant just blame global warming all on CO2 and us.


Amen Dagger. We're along for the ride and have been for thousands of years.

posted on Oct, 30 2003 @ 07:22 PM
I think there's compelling evidence that the current global warming theories are sound. It's our oceanography skills that need improvement.

You have two primary greenhouse gases that play a role in the upper atmosphere. Obviously the one that gets the most attention is carbon dioxide. And arguably so. The historical data on C02 concentrations in the upper atmosphere is shocking.
Fortunately, remediation of this imbalance is actually quite simple. But that's not the intent of this thread..

The other gas that is most concerning is methane. Here's a nice compound that historically has only been found in trace ammounts in the atmosphere and now is some 15% of the mix. Not only difficult to remove from the upper atmosphere, it slowly begins to destroy 03. As our stratospheric ozone depletions continue we're more susceptible to incoming radiation from the sun. The global temperature IS WARMING and these are part of the processes.

This warming not only disturbs the carbon cycle but other important oceanic cycles, that in turn drive our weather systems. This is where we need more research. We have a good idea about circulation patterns but only from satellite imagery. And considering that we only started taking shots some 20 years ago, we really don't have a good baseline. Cores from the ocean floor can reveal the atmospheric concentrations of gases over time, but they don't describe the circulation patters.

What we do know is that the circulation patterns in the ocean are changing rapidly and that the forced warming is mostly to blame. And they could change in a manner that would bring about an ice age very suddenly. As counter intuitive as it may seem, a forced warming can trigger global ice storms. A type of storm that hasn't seen in the modern day.

How close we are to that type of switch is really anybody's guess..

posted on Oct, 30 2003 @ 07:35 PM
I caught part of a programme last night that said that only 1/3 of the co2 emissions that we pump out actually went up into the atmosphere and that the rest was missing. The sums don't add up and that one possible reason was that they have been soaked up by the amazon rain forests.basically we produce co2 from using fossil fuel and this in turn is absorbed back into the forests which thousands of years ago helped to create some of the fuel that we use by dying and decaying in the first place.It just seems to be a never ending cycle. They also suggested that these huge reserves of co2 could be released at some point. I missed the bit that explained how this might happen and what the result would be

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 07:57 AM
kukla, I respect your research ability to no end but the current actual trends we are seeing just don't mesh with the global warming computer model. The difference we seem to be experiencing is between actual measured data and a predicted model. Its fine to use modeling but the factors must be corrected to reflect realities as they are researched. I'm not very political as I am scientific and I believe politics to be the driving force behind the global warming theory. I do not discount the climactic changes of the earth I simply cannot accept such short term comparisons to be made on such a long term issue. We know that the rise in Carbon in the atmosphere followed a near 300 year warming trend from the Little Ice Age at the end of the middle ages and we know that this is expected for various reasons. We also mark many, many advances and retreats of glacial activity and will continue to do so. We know that the earth has still not fully recovered from that Ice Age and returned to its normal seasonal temps and likely will not in our lifetimes. We also know that the release of carbon by industry is a drop in the bucket to the entire planet and we know that co2 is used by flora worldwide.

No one seemed very upset when Saddam Hussein ignited oils fields releasing toxins into the air but let someone drive to the supermarket and whoa to them.

In my research I have found this global warming theory to be no more than a red herring, an excuse for the self righteous and elite to enact a level of control upon their fellow humans while all the while being more destructive to the environment overall than if they'd just let those educated and experienced in the field manage it. I don't even want to get started on the California fires which with the same political, non-scientific management , were no suprise to anyone in forestry just like last year's Showlow AZ fires. Their major has since resended the managment practices of the elite in favor of educated forestry people who do actual research into proper clearing of underbrush and control burns to remove debris which fed such a destructive fire.....and added more evil co2 to the atmosphere.

Look, I don't mean to come at you in attack mode and I hope it doesn't seem like it. I'm not for letting people polute either mind you and report illegal dumping of trash and chemicals that i find as I work statewide. I want clean water and air but I don't think reverting to poverty stricken non-technological culture is the way to get it, in fact, I think it will have the dier negative effect on the environment. We can now take the time to worry about keeping our environment clean because we have sufficient wealth to meet basic needs but when you take that away, survival becomes paramount and the environment is forgotten. The envro movement came about not out of disgust for wealth but from it. If you were to ask me what I think the biggest threat to the environment is today, my number one answer would be poverty. From it comes lack of education, technology and the ability to clean our air and water after we make them dirty.

On global wamring, here's a recent true scientific study done by the guys in white coats not 3000 dollar suits.

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 08:11 AM
astrocreep, very interesting link there, thanks for posting it

If I understand that correctly there are natural periods of global warming and cooling alternating through centuries.
There is still a question though, what kind of effect does the polution have on those cycles. 6 billion people living and breathing, using resouces, developing industry, it has to have some kind of effect. To know for sure, it will take at least another 100 years of constant observation of world wide climate changes.

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 08:56 AM
This study span the last 1000 years so I don't see why the next one-hundred would be the deciding factor.

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 09:18 AM
look at the average earth temperature for the past years, it's going up

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 10:24 AM
Yeah, because we're still in recovery from an Ice Age and might I add..still officially in an Ice Age. In the last 150 years, there is a questionable 1 degree rise in surface temp only. We aren't seeing the atmopshere rise at all in reality, only in the GW model. Quoting that as reality is reaching..big time. In that 150 year cycle, we had a major eruption of Timbora which spread ash thoughout the atmosphere and dropped global temps for 3 to 5 years significantly. Are we including those years in the average we're comparing too? Also the method of temp measure comes into question. I have 2 calibrated lab thermometers reading almost a half a degree off placed side by side so how in the hell can we place credit on 2 or more devices accuracy over a hundred years? Look, read the link I posted. To the political pundits who favor passion and emotion irreguardless of factual information, it may seem dry reading but science is hardly ever dramatic.

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 10:35 AM
ac, I've always respected your research and insights. In fact, I would say a discussion on Global Warming is worthy of either an exhibition debate or a research project. Any interest?

This is my first time hearing of CFA's work. An interesting idea to take a "global" look at all the research. I do have a couple problems though. When Enron collapsed, it was revealed that a Harvard trust actually owned a sizeable share of Enron. I wouldn't say that has affected their scientific judgement, just somehthing to keep in mind. But I would agree with their conclusion, on it's premise.

"While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century."

What it doesn't note is the time in which the maximum temperatures were reached during the medieval warmth. There's also no referrence to ocean temperatures, salinity and methane.

"I want clean water and air but I don't think reverting to poverty stricken non-technological culture is the way to get it.."

WE CAN correct many of the problems without such a reversion. We just need to start applying the appropriate technologies.

In regards to the current temperature scenario, here are some handy links.

Surface temperature anomaly 90 days

Sea surface temperature anomaly 90 days

Surface winds velocity anomaly 90 days

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by astrocreep
This study span the last 1000 years so I don't see why the next one-hundred would be the deciding factor.

Thats 1000 years of climate without any influence by industry, technology, ozone holes, 6 billion people etc etc. Now we have to see if these factors have any influence on existing climate cycles or not.

@ kukla: nice links. Maybe we should start a research project on this...

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 01:41 PM
Global warming is a fraud.

"Global warming is not so hot:
1003 was worse, researchers find"


"The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather."

And this:

"New Harvard Study Heats up 'Global Warming' Debate"

Both are very good articles on this and worth the read. I think Global Warming is a fraud and a hoax.

Global Warming has been under scrutiny for quite some time now.
A 2400 year old ice-core record leads many, many to believe this also:

Brief Introduction to the History of Climate"

"CO2-Temperature Correlations -- Summary"

"Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration: a Granger causality analysis"
Link: (pdf file)

And these very infromative sources:
"Early explorers' journals throw cold water on global warming theory"


"The evidence on global warming"

Hope these help.


posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 02:15 PM
kukla, yeah, I'm very interested in a research project on it. I'm, not dismissing anything but I want truth more than political fodder. If there is such a problem we can repair then I think its important to not bury our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't there but that is a double -edged sword and if this is just a part of the planet's evolution and behavior, I don't think we should stiffle progress or even regress. The beef I have with global warming theory is that most of its activists are , in the word's of Patrick Moore (founder of GreenPeace) "mainly political activists with not very much actual science background who are using the rhetoric of environmentalism to push agendas that are more political than they are ecological.

Its not really that I begrudge anyone their cause even if I know its a psuedo-illusionary one, its that the actions these groups advocate can and do have negative affects on the environment..and that I do care about. yeah, we can compare temps from yesrday to today and we can compare yesterday's to the same day 10 years ago but what impressed me about Havard's project is their thorough investigation into fossils, tree rings, glacial cores. To my knowledge, there has never been such a study done by scientist.

I have no knowledge of their tie-in with the petroleum industry and if you have bonified evidence, please present it. I'm not denying a relationship between them and Enron but it seems that Enron touched quite a few people and organizations on both sides of the isle. Even Algore and Gray davis both had interests with Enron and we can see contributions from them to Bill Clinton, and his dealings through Robert Rubin with them. No one (well not many) knew what they were about then and a few, maybe only Mr. Rubin knew what was to come down the pike because he presided over the whole affair but thats another subject and I'm wondering off topic here. Anyway, when i say proof, I don't mean an article by a political pundit who has just tried to claim it enough to make it true. that ideology doesn't get it with me. Thats why Colonel and I butt heads so much. I demand proof other than repetitive linquistics.

My point is, they released their findings and no one else has shown anything other than what the global warming model predicts. They speak of it as if it were reflective of reality and after almost 20 years of inconsistencies, we still cannot get them to let that go. Its been disproven but its not been accepted. You know how sometimes someone loses a loved one they really cared about and depended on and how they go into denial and keep refering to them in the present sense. Well, Thats what we have with global warming theory.

I'm not kicking environmentlism, in fact I'm a proponent of it, I just think time, money and resources could be better utilized to stop illegal dumping and sewage, research our mounting trash / landfill problem and so many other things we have to worry about and accept that there are certain things we must accept about planet earth if we're going to live on it. Its' climate changed in the past, it hasn't stopped changing and probably will never stop changing.

All I'm saying is, get politics and science in two different corners of the ring. I know its impossible but the influence of whether someone is republican or democrat has no damn business in a laboratory. I feel strongly about it and I guess thats why everytime someone post something on this, I go off. I have studied and researched it so extensively and it kills me to see us and a nation overlook so many other things to get us our political agendas.

I'd love to do a research project on it but it really wouldn't be much more than me posting all my bookmarks in my GW folder because I've been at this a long time since before I came to realize what it was all about. I began it out of general concern for the model's predicted outcome and of course, like many of you, I thought I was hearing actual real findings and not just what findings should be according to the model. It took me some time to distinguish between the two enough to simplify into into words for the lay person. That truth was one of the theories biggest and deepest buried secrets then and it really stands to reason it was. The whole theory depends upon reality following that model and when one speaks of the model, unless put on the spot about it, one doesn't tell that its from the model not actual data.

"Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and David Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware), compiled and examined results from more than 240 research papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. Their report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years. "

..but failed to take into account politics so the whole damn project was discounted...??

[Edited on 31-10-2003 by astrocreep]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in