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.
Nygdan
Indeed, they could. Problem is, they don't. Sunspot and flare activity do not explain the warming trend.
Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot
Originally posted by Mr_Peel
Originally posted by Thinker_1
I have a question - with all the ice that has already melted, why are the coasts not flooded yet? Where is the water going? Anyone know?
I believe there has been a rise in ocean level. I know the streets of Venice are now under the lagoon surface for something like 4 months of the year...
It's hard to get down to the level of year-to-year granularity, but you can see the trend is a slight acceleration here:
en.wikipedia.org...:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
Venice is sinking. Has been for hundreds of years. Thats why many of the older buildings have walled off thier basements, they are now underwater.
Incereased water levels in venice simply means that the sinking is continuing.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot
Tell me speaker, other than the results of his research, how do you determine a "legitimate scientist" from a "paid shill" Becuase is seems to me your criteria is whether or not his or her research provides evidence which supports your favored theory.
I am going to be highly suspicious of any findings of a "scientist" who is fiananced by one of the major polluters, especially when they erroneously state things like, "Well, the factories aren't a major contributor to pollution,et cetera." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that statements like that are not only bought and paid for, but entirely false. It's as simple as that.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Here is an interesting article about solar radiation affecting the "greenhouse effect":
May 10, 2005
Global Warming: Something New Under the Sun?
Filed under: Climate Forcings, Aerosols, Solar —
That appears to be what is happening, judging from three papers in the May 6 issue of Science.
These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.
Before you kill the greenhouse effect, please note that we think this is a lot of hooey. But if you accept these results, that’s where you have to go.
You’d think it would be huge news that the greenhouse scare is over. Instead, the “news” sections of Science and Nature are behaving in their predictable fashion. In Nature, Quirin Schiermeier wrote “this may worsen the greenhouse effect.”
Really?
Solar Radiation
Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Originally posted by soficrow
Sorry - but I find your comments uneducated, and your attempts to trivialize the topic crude. To say the least.
I can say the same for you.. Do you really think the Earth doesn't have its own ability to clean itself? Are you saying we should plug up and stop every single volcano in the world?? Earth is one big burning fossil fuel, we are just on the crust of it. You would think, by now Earths air would be deadly, since Earth has been polluting itself since the beginning... I'm 100% certain the Earth has its own way of cleaning itself.
Acid rain huh, does it rain every day? No.
Now, is the green house gases really a bad thing? I mean if green houses are used to make plants grow faster, wouldn't that make the plants on Earth grow faster?
[edit on 21-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]
Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Originally posted by soficrow
Sorry - but I find your comments uneducated, and your attempts to trivialize the topic crude. To say the least.
I can say the same for you.. Do you really think the Earth doesn't have its own ability to clean itself? Are you saying we should plug up and stop every single volcano in the world?? Earth is one big burning fossil fuel, we are just on the crust of it. You would think, by now Earths air would be deadly, since Earth has been polluting itself since the beginning... I'm 100% certain the Earth has its own way of cleaning itself.
Acid rain huh, does it rain every day? No.
Now, is the green house gases really a bad thing? I mean if green houses are used to make plants grow faster, wouldn't that make the plants on Earth grow faster?
[edit on 21-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]
Originally posted by jlc163
And I have a hard time beliveing scientists paid by Green Peace and other evironmental terrorists, either.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, for one, I am not aware of any financial benefit that greenpeace would accrue from global warming being a fact. You do realize that if it's proven that all of these chemical plants are contributing to the warming of the globe that they will have to either change their tactics or shut down? Who stands to lose? The big corporations do.
So,tell me, why wouldn't big corporations support skewed "scientific" findings? Why should I view these "findings" as reliable?
Originally posted by alphabetaone
SpeakerofTruth,
You have mentioned now countless times how our "population" is ignorant to the facts, and dont research.
I would like to point out a few things that apparently seem to escape your grasp as well as ask you a couple of questions.
I don't think that anyone is arguing the case for the "global warming" phenomenon. Anyone who even reads the news can surely be aware that the mean temperature GLOBALLY has increased by approximately 1 degree over the last 100 years or so. In summary to say that when 'global warming is a fact' would only be redundant and unnecessary research, it IS a fact. The variables which have the CAUSE of that fact are what's in question to the populace, not the fact itself.
Now to ask you a few questions:
Have you personally done research with NOAA data on climatic change?
Have you taken their accrual of years worth of data, run it through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance?
Have you personally taken the data from ARGO's Oceanic buoys and run them through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance between SST (sea surface temperature) and salinity?
Have you personally taken the data from Hadley centers vast array of climatic data and examined it yourself over say the last 100 years to determine much of the same?
Have you personally BEEN to antarctica and seen that while SOME of the worlds glaciers are retreating a large portion of them are in fact GROWING?
Have you personally done any research on the Gakkel ridge (in case you werent aware this lies under the arctic ocean).
Do you listen to more than your own agenda?
I would say, that, for you to not be a victim of that which you decry, if you have answered no to a majority of those questions, then perhaps it time to start reading a bit more, time to start analyzing a bit more, and time to draw conclusions with soundness based on your OWN scientific research apart from citing articles that have been DRAFTED by others.
Have you personally done research with NOAA data on climatic change?
Have you taken their accrual of years worth of data, run it through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance?
Have you personally taken the data from ARGO's Oceanic buoys and run them through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance between SST (sea surface temperature) and salinity?
Have you personally taken the data from Hadley centers vast array of climatic data and examined it yourself over say the last 100 years to determine much of the same?
Have you personally BEEN to antarctica and seen that while SOME of the worlds glaciers are retreating a large portion of them are in fact GROWING?
Have you personally done any research on the Gakkel ridge (in case you werent aware this lies under the arctic ocean).
Do you listen to more than your own agenda?
Originally posted by darkbluesky
You'll notice I omitted the term "toxic" I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations. Most of the thousdands of tons of atmospheric pollution each year consist of particulates (unburned fuel and carbon) and Sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen oxide.
[edit on 9/22/2006 by darkbluesky]
I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Originally posted by Essan
What good are vehicles if you can't drive them because of massive flooding due to polar ice caps melting?
The world is not going to suddenly flood or freeze like Al Gore says these things take time. And in Antartica they have found out that it is actually gaining ice. Many scientist throw global warming around to get noticed and to get money.
"an inconveinent truth" for Gore is that most of the warming is due to natural causes and many people use the fear factor to scare everyone out of their minds.
Twenty years ago wasn't everyone afraid of freezing to death. And in the long hall no matter what we do even if it does flood eveything has to adapt or die.
I am glad that the Bush administration has withdrew us from numerous treaties that would hurt the economy for no reason at all trying to protect us from the whole earth flooding.
Originally posted by spinstopshere
I am glad that the Bush administration has withdrew us from numerous treaties that would hurt the economy for no reason at all trying to protect us from the whole earth flooding.
Originally posted by TheAvenger
This environmental chemist is of the opinion that global warming is a natural
phenomenon, and that humankind can have, and have had little if any effect
on this natural climatic process. After years of study, I have found zero compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.
I am an independent researcher funded by...myself.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Originally posted by darkbluesky
You'll notice I omitted the term "toxic" I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations. Most of the thousdands of tons of atmospheric pollution each year consist of particulates (unburned fuel and carbon) and Sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen oxide.
[edit on 9/22/2006 by darkbluesky]
So,in other words you don't view toxic chemicals as toxic?
I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations.
So,you think that the earth throws toxins into the atmosphere as well,eh? Okay..... no comment on that one.... LMAO