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.

 

The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

page: 9
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Excellent point about the actual measurement procedures and one I have raised in the past. I used to work in a geotech lab and we'd have so called calibrated thermometers that would measure as much as a half degree F in the same beaker. No way that we can rely on such devices to be accurate over a decade or longer.

Also, the measurements say they take into account the albedo effect on large metros which do cause a warming locally because the pavement and manmade wind breaks ie.. buildings. Now, some scientists are starting to voice that these variables have been underestimated in these measurements.




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I recognize that human activities are damaging our planet's ecosphere. At the same time, I see that cosmic events and cycles also have impacts, and that the two factors likely create a feedback loop that heightens or speeds the other's effects.

IMO - We need to acknowledge all the factors in play, and work together to mitigate the effects of these various factors to benefit the whole of humanity and life on the planet.

In case you missed this one:




Study: Earth's Wobble Wipes Out Species

Climate change, naturally induced by tiny shifts in Earth's rotational axis and orbit, periodically wipes out species of mammals, a study published on Thursday says.

Paleontologists have long puzzled over fossil records that, remarkably, suggest mammal species tend to last around two and a half million years before becoming extinct.

Climate experts and biologists led by Jan van Dam at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, overlaid a picture of species emergence and extinction with changes that occur in Earth's orbit and axis. ...One wave of extinction was roughly every 2.4 million years or so and the other was about every million years or so, coinciding with extremes in the cycles of ellipticality, wobble and tilt. ...These were not swift, massive die-out's of the kind that famously wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, but rather a fadeout of species which could not cope with habitat loss or competition, especially when Ice Ages kicked in. ...As they became extinct, other species emerged.

Also see: Earth Wobbles With the Weather




Remember: the 2004 Asian tsunami also affected the earth's wobble; quakes trigger quakes and tsunamis; and drilling for oil triggers quakes.

Obviously, our planet is a complex event, not a static object. It is always changing, adjusting, and shifting to accommodate forces, and the interplay of forces.

Equally obvious, so must we change, adjust and shift our being in response to the far-reaching impacts of our activities, and out of respect for things larger than ourselves.


.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
That same example can be extrapolated for percipitation, minumum temps and all the rest of the various weather-related measurements that go into predicting climate.

This also goes along with the fact that weather-prediction services can never be 100% accurate...Even with so many multi-billion $ satellites, super-computer weather modeling & ever more sophisticated sensor-instruments, they still can't really predict much more than a week in advance (& each day further ahead of today increases the chance that they're wrong anyway).
Why?
Because weather is such a chaotic phenomenon with so many unmeasureable variables; They can never pin down all of the variables involved. It's something like an "art" that they try to define with "science".
This is why I've experienced the privilege of shoveling off 3" of "partly cloudy" from my sidwalk...



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   
ill tell you whats causing the solar warming...its PLANET X

youll see what im talking about.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Son-a-M,

I don't know what you mean. I'm looking right at my radar screen and I don't see it!



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
Son-a-M,

I don't know what you mean. I'm looking right at my radar screen and I don't see it!

Go to this site...they have potentially identified Planet X.

www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...

The above site will suggest an explanation for what is causing the apparent warming of our solar system.


Indeed, elliptical orbit equations have been found to be a better predictor of precession rates than Newcomb's formula, showing about ten times greater accuracyover the last hundred years. Moreover, a binary orbit motion of our sun provides a solution to a number of solar system formation theory enigmas including angular momentum. For these reasons, BRI has concluded our sun is most likely part of a long cycle binary system.

A binary system is two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a common center of mass. The stars can be of the same or differing sizes and orbits can be as short as a few days or as long as thousands of years. The short ones are easy to detect, the long ones difficult, some probably impossible to detect because of the very long observation period required.

At this time it appears the only logical explanation for what is occurring throughout the entire solar system...not just here on earth.
As Son of Man suggests ... all will be revealed ... but by that time it will be too late for most of humanity.

Namaste

Raphael



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I hate to turn the global warming thing around, but actually as far as Earth's history is concerned an Ice epoch which we are in right now is the abnormality.

Ice epochs occur every 150 million years or so.

Some say the cause is : very long cycles in Solar energy output; or continental drift (eg:the closing off of ocean currents); or cosmic radiation due to galactic rotation and passing thru the galactic plane; also major asteroid strikes and the attending volcanism have been blamed.

Normal would be the inter-glacial epoch 150 million year period of no ice caps and temperate climes at both poles.

Chart

en.wikipedia.org...

I would like someone to speak to that.


www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...














[edit on 10/15/2006 by bodebliss]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I couldn't agree any more with you astrocreep. People need to understand that the climate of the Earth is dynamic and there is no way for mankind to stop climate change. Yes, there will be changes, and we need to work together to adapt to those changes.



I will suggest that for a very LONG time there have been people who have understood the climate of the Earth is dynamic and there is no way for mankind to stop climate change and save everyone from the coming earthly apocalypse, the event when our Mom (the earth) swallows us whole...

Nothing we can do...except pray and prepare.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO RE-FREEZE THE 'POLES' ... therefore we are toast. Most us will be, others have been preparing ... space stations and underground installations ... the human virus will survive.

Muaddib maybe you should be offering swimming lessons instead of information to the flock?
You guys will be measuring, quantifying and debating right till the end.
blub...blub...blub

namaste

Raphael

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Kachina]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Also one other attending theory for the Ice Epoch(last 30 million years) we are in is the rise of mountain ranges especially the Himalayas and and the fact the breaking down of newly exposed rock took alot of CO2 out of the atmosphere causing a chill-down.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kachina
As Son of Man suggests ... all will be revealed ... but by that time it will be too late for most of humanity.




i appreciate the support



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss


Normal would be the inter-glacial epoch 150 million year period of no ice caps and temperate climes at both poles.

I would like someone to speak to that.



Certainly, and I am glad you brought it up. You are correct. Ice caps are not the normal state for the planet. I personally believe a comet impact or similar event deposited or caused this condition in the fiirst place and that earth has been attempting to revert to its normal state of climate for eons. Of course, this will not be possible with the newly introduced variables so what we'll end up with is a varied state between the two at any given time frame.

The theory of global warming has now been taken out of the hands of those who sought to know the reasons and given to those who simply want to have their political party in power and need a weapon. The plus side of that is that good scientific research is still being done despite the attempts to squelch all information that does not support the burning of CO2 as the primary reason and while we are in a frustrating moment in this whole thing, it shall eventually be brought to light.

I can actually already see it beginning to overpower the censors with the increase in posts such as these and articles in various magazines. Those individuals with the ability to speak to the science are being replaced by those who use emotional talking points such as the member who sought to kill this entire thread rather than offer up any discussion.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Those individuals with the ability to speak to the science are being replaced by those who use emotional talking points




IMO - the information originally was censored and discussion redirected back in the 1970's - when it still was considered heretical in many circles to suggest there were tectonic plates, more than one ice age, and an ice age looming.

Seems authorities were concerned that if people recognized that we cannot control nature, and stuff happens no matter what we do, then everyone would go all fatalistic and irresponsible and say "Nothing matters. We can just do what we want to the environment cuz it's gonna nosedive anyway." And use this fatalism as a rationale to trash the planet.

Also seems like irresponsibility won out. So much for manipulating the masses.





posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
...............
Also seems like irresponsibility won out. So much for manipulating the masses.




How is that exactly soficrow? While there are still activities which do damage the environment, we have moved very far away form what was done to the environment starting in the late 1800s-1980s. We are repopulating many forests, something which was never done for over a century of uncontrolled deforestation, it still happens in some countries but it is not as it used to be.

We have been moving into "environmentally friendly" products, from car wash to other chemicals used in daily life. There are certain standards to protect the environment that all companies in developed countries, or most of them, must follow through. It is true that some companies try, and do hide some of their activities but things have improved quite a bit from how things were not so long ago.

There is still much to do, but we are moving in the right direction. What I am not so certain about is that nomatter what the climate changes we have been seeing will continue to increase and affect many people around the world, and nature will not wait for mankind to find a balance, and even if we did for some miracle find a perfect balance with the environment and no damage was done by human activities we would still go through these climatic changes that are so apparent now.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
No I agree with soficrow.

The human race is in a use it before someone else gets to use, expend it before someone else gets to expend it, or profit from it before someone else gets to profit from it mode, and also don't leave anything for the next generation because at this pace there won't be one mode.

The only thing that might dampen that is the coming of everlasting health and the everlasting health debate is already here. www.sens.org...

When people will live 5,000, 10,000, etc years, the environment will take
precedence over greed.










[edit on 10/22/2006 by bodebliss]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
this is the idea with which I cannot agree. These are two separate topics albeit related but two separate topics indeed. Polution is bad, of this there is no doubt. Our localized enviroments suffer, of this there is no doubt. The move to clean our environment is in full swing these days and I am damn glad of it..now if we can just get the rest of the world into the modern age, I think it would become a global effort. This is where I disagree with so many enviro-activists.

Their efforts to protect the primitive cultures of desease and starvation from becoming modern is self-righteous and uneducated. Its easy to say that these primitive cultures should be undesturbed while sipping a latte from their luxury apartments. They are not the ones without the ability to receive healthcare when they are sick. They are not the ones who have not the wealth to clean their water and soil. The biggest enemy of the environment is not idustry, my friends..its poverty. Thats evident in our own society as well. I just spent the week working on the East side of Philly. Take a look at the local environment in a wealthy area of a city versus the environment of a poor area and see who is polluting more.

Why do we then have to silence the fact that on a global scale, climate change is something that has always been, is and always will be happening? Thats the rub for me. Because I have an education in earth science and happen to know changes of even greater magnatude have happened very frequently in the past and will continue to do so, I somehow hate the environment. No, hell no! If we accept the idea that mankind is responsible enough to be held accountable for what they have done to the environment on a localized level, then it too should be responsible enough to understand it all.

Political agendas are for morons, plain and simple. This is a discussion of earth science of climatology and physical geography. Global warming is not a topic that belongs here for it has become a political tool. A tool to obtain grant money and a tool to get candidates elected. To some it has become their religion because they accept it unconditionally and not only refuse to hear any other evidence but will also work to keep it from being brought to light. That robs us all when they are successful and its why we keep this site up and running.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
OK!

The reality is we are in an Ice Epoch with no end in sight.

A new Ice Age is around the corner!

We had better be prepared or billions will die.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

The biggest enemy of the environment is not idustry, my friends..its poverty. Thats evident in our own society as well. I just spent the week working on the East side of Philly. Take a look at the local environment in a wealthy area of a city versus the environment of a poor area and see who is polluting more.




As I understand it, you are saying that because poor areas are more polluted, it follows that the greatest pollution comes from poverty. I disagree with that conclusion.

In fact, the wealthy can afford to live away from pollution - and have the political power to prevent industrial pollution from being part of their local environment.

The amount of pollution in slums and developing nations simply reflects the fact that they cannot afford to live where the air, soil and water are clean, or where the food is uncontaminated.

The poor are stuck with polluting industries - and the environments that industrial pollution creates - they do not have the political power to protect their own environments, and cannot afford to move away.

The poor cannot afford the cost of living in clean areas - not the rents or property values, or travel to their place of work.

Being forced to live in a polluted environment is a consequence of poverty, but poverty does not create pollution - industry does.





Why do we then have to silence the fact that on a global scale, climate change is something that has always been, is and always will be happening?




There is room for both observations:

1. Change of all kinds occurs on this earth, naturally; and

2. Human activity, especially industrial activity, has negative impacts that can - and should - be prevented.






...global warming is not a topic that belongs here for it has become a political tool. A tool to obtain grant money and a tool to get candidates elected. To some it has become their religion because they accept it unconditionally and not only refuse to hear any other evidence but will also work to keep it from being brought to light.




The opposite is also true.

Some insist that all earth changes are natural, that industry's impact is negligible - and that anything goes because nature's power is far greater than the power of man to impact the environment.

This position is routinely used as a political tool. A tool to justify irresponsible development, and a tool to get candidates elected to support the corporate world order. To some it has become their religion because they accept it unconditionally and not only refuse to hear any other evidence but also work to keep other, legitimate truth from being brought to light.





That robs us all when they are successful




Acknowledging the truth of BOTH observations leads to the obvious question:

What can we do to survive the changes as a species, and protect what we can, out of respect for all cultures and all life on the planet?

Working together to answer the question will lead to a cleaner, healthier and better planet - and may just save the human species from extinction.






its why we keep this site up and running.




Oh. I didn't know that. I thought ATS was about denying ignorance, not denying alternate viewpoints and protecting the corporate world order.



.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow



As I understand it, you are saying that because poor areas are more polluted, it follows that the greatest pollution comes from poverty. I disagree with that conclusion.

In fact, the wealthy can afford to live away from pollution - and have the political power to prevent industrial pollution from being part of their local environment.

The amount of pollution in slums and developing nations simply reflects the fact that they cannot afford to live where the air, soil and water are clean, or where the food is uncontaminated.

The poor are stuck with polluting industries - and the environments that industrial pollution creates - they do not have the political power to protect their own environments, and cannot afford to move away.

The poor cannot afford the cost of living in clean areas - not the rents or property values, or travel to their place of work.

Being forced to live in a polluted environment is a consequence of poverty, but poverty does not create pollution - industry does.





Then why are the countries with no industry some of the worst polluted on the planet? A complex question with a really simple answer; poverty is indeed the cause of a polluted environment. It is because the people cannot afford to clean the soil and water that they must pollute to survive. I spent yesterday picking up trash from the riverbank behind my house. Why? Because my family and I had food, shelter, and all of our basic needs met. When you have either a hungry stomach or a medical condition from which you are suffering, you will never give the environment a second thought and neither do they.






There is room for both observations:

1. Change of all kinds occurs on this earth, naturally; and

2. Human activity, especially industrial activity, has negative impacts that can - and should - be prevented.



No argument from me on either of those points. The argument I give is trying to attribute all climate changes to mankind. The truth of the matter is that industrial activity is nasty and dirty but then again so is our entire race in its natural state. We are that way because of our natural processes. Industry gives us many things that help us meet our needs and give us resources to not only clean up after it but ourselves also.






Acknowledging the truth of BOTH observations leads to the obvious question:

What can we do to survive the changes as a species, and protect what we can, out of respect for all cultures and all life on the planet?

Working together to answer the question will lead to a cleaner, healthier and better planet - and may just save the human species from extinction.



True on both points again! However, the only way the human race will do that is if all our basic survival needs are met. Look at the last environmental conference a few years back. I think they held it in Africa . Looking at the conference catering table from pictures along side of photos of children drinking from mud holes just outside the conference infuriated me that all the representatives who came together to gorge themselves while they decided to "protect" the starving masses outside from electricity and modern commercialization were from countries that were industrialized. But thats all they will do, is just visit these poor people. Just about like the hollywood crowd who summarily pass judgement upon everyone else all the while sitting in a fine restaurant sipping coffee. Thats hypocrisy.



Oh. I didn't know that. I thought ATS was about denying ignorance, not denying alternate viewpoints and protecting the corporate world order.


See, I followed your good points the whole way and you really impressed me most of the time and then you end with this comment. Do you not believe that denying ignorance is the act of correcting a misleading? Thats all I am doing. I don't support big business nor do I think pollution is okay by any means. I just know many of the suppositions that are being fed to the public are not factual and are not meant for the greater good. They are made by small people with small lives all in the name of political agendas which, 100 years from now will be as meaningless as the ones from 100 years ago...and guess what? WE will still be adjusting to our environment and still will have to clean up after ourselves.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Then why are the countries with no industry some of the worst polluted on the planet? A complex question with a really simple answer; poverty is indeed the cause of a polluted environment. It is because the people cannot afford to clean the soil and water that they must pollute to survive.




We seem to be mostly on the same page - but I think you're dead wrong here.

Mining, drilling, manufacturing - all stress the environment and create pollution either directly or indirectly, locally and globally.

Could you please provide some examples to illustrate your claim?

...I honestly just don't get how you could come to that conclusion.






The argument I give is trying to attribute all climate changes to mankind.
...Do you not believe that denying ignorance is the act of correcting a misleading? Thats all I am doing. I don't support big business nor do I think pollution is okay by any means. I just know many of the suppositions that are being fed to the public are not factual and are not meant for the greater good. They are made by small people with small lives all in the name of political agendas which, 100 years from now will be as meaningless as the ones from 100 years ago...and guess what? WE will still be adjusting to our environment and still will have to clean up after ourselves.



The problem is with the extreme positions:

1. Mankind is responsible for all climate change;

2. All climate change is natural.


By dismissing ALL evidence describing industrial man's role in affecting climate and maybe exacerbating or speeding natural cycles - you are making the same error you criticize in others. IMO.





posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


We seem to be mostly on the same page - but I think you're dead wrong here.

Mining, drilling, manufacturing - all stress the environment and create pollution either directly or indirectly, locally and globally.

Could you please provide some examples to illustrate your claim?

...I honestly just don't get how you could come to that conclusion.





Certainly, lets start with the rain forest. Nuff said or should I explain that they cut it down to try and make more farmland because they have no knowledge of crop rotation or fertilization.

Another good example is the one I used in the post before this one. Starving children looking for a clean drink of water. Why is the water dirty? Because no one has the wealth to clean it once its contaminated by human and animal waste..not industry.

I am also quite certain that you have a good argument with your proposal that industry does cause pollution, however, it does so against the law and risks the repercussions if caught. I'm not denying that industry pollutes, but with the wealth that comes from it, we have seen many programs to clean up after it. I do think and support the mandatory reclaimation of our environment and am glad our country is able to engage in what so many are not.





The problem is with the extreme positions:

1. Mankind is responsible for all climate change;

2. All climate change is natural.


By dismissing ALL evidence describing industrial man's role in affecting climate and maybe exacerbating or speeding natural cycles - you are making the same error you criticize in others. IMO.



Oh no, I have not dismissed anything except the notion that all climate changes are manmade. I did not and will not go to the extreme in the other direction. Thats what started this whole thread, the presentation of probable evidence of solar system wide change and the attempt to censor it. Its easy to see the effects on our localized climate ie ..dust domes and higher albedo rates in larger cities. You all can have them. I spent a week in Philly and it felt like a month. The stink in the air was everywhere and I was glad to get back my rural home. But, as bad as I did not like it, I realize that without it, we are as screwed as we are with it. Its a catch 22. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join