'No doubt' global warming is real

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 03:31 PM
link   
There can be no doubt that global warming is real and is being caused by people, two top US Government climate experts said.

They say industrial emissions are a leading cause, contradicting critics who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural forces.


www.abc.net.au...




posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 03:44 PM
link   
There is no doubt that we are screwing our world. The people who will tell us that global warming is in fact not happening are the

"scientists" who work for Exxon Mobil.

T
h
e
y published a survey claiming that over a thousand scientists had accepted global warming as not true. Characters from M*A*S*H were found in this list.. Don't let them fool you...We must do something otherwise future generations will be living in #ing waterworld!



posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 04:11 PM
link   
global warming is just about as true as the 'fact' we 'created' the ozone hole. the planet changes over time. now remember, humans havent been around that long, and weve been observing the world for a small fraction of that time.



posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Ozone holes are caused by chemical reactions that take place primarily on the surface of polar stratospheric clouds, ice particles, or liquid droplets, which form at high altitudes in the extreme cold of the polar regions. The number of particles that form, and therefore the amount of chemical ozone destruction, is extremely sensitive to small changes in stratospheric temperature. Hence, even small amounts of stratospheric cooling can greatly increase ozone depletion. In fact, it is because stratospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere winter/spring are generally slightly warmer than those in the Southern Hemisphere that ozone losses over the Arctic have been much smaller than over the Antarctic during the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the Arctic stratosphere has gradually cooled over the past few decades. Very large ozone losses have been observed there recently, especially in 1997. Why might this be happening, and what is likely to happen in the future?



[img]

www.giss.nasa.gov... [/img]


www.giss.nasa.gov...

[Edited on 4-12-2003 by energy_wave]



posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I also read about a picture supposedly taken by Greenpeace about a large chunk of ice broken off a glacier in the arctic, caused by global WARMING.

They later found that the picture was taken by an expedition to the arctic: in the 1930's



posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Why are environmentalists so sure that CFC's are the cause of this? Can someone show me conclusive evidence that CFC's are directly causing the global warming we are in? And saying that it is getting hotter doesn't correctly identify CFC's as the cause.

Suppose for a moment the sun is actually getting hotter, or giving off more radiation (which it has been from what I have read). Wouldn't that cause global warming? Check out this link:

www.sustdev.org...

Then this:

aol.skyarchive.org...

I am not saying that either of these explanations are right either, but I think that we are jumping to conclusions if we are saying for sure that CFC's are 100% the culprit of any warming going on.


Originally posted by earthtone
There is no doubt that we are screwing our world. The people who will tell us that global warming is in fact not happening are the

"scientists" who work for Exxon Mobil.

T
h
e
y published a survey claiming that over a thousand scientists had accepted global warming as not true. Characters from M*A*S*H were found in this list.. Don't let them fool you...We must do something otherwise future generations will be living in #ing waterworld!



posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 07:39 PM
link   
let's talk CO2 for a moment...

carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it accelerates the natural warming process of the earth by trapping radiant heat from the sun...

carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels...

fossil fuels are used to produce electricity, and to power cars, airplanes, boats, anything with a internal combustion engine...

these are the two most used things by the greatest majority of the human race...

there are more people on the earth than ever before...

and its just that simple...

we ARE the problem.




posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I'm not believing it. How can anyone be so far from it to actually still entertain the notion that global warming is anything other than a scaremongering myth long ago disproven?

I'm telling you, I'm losing faith in the intelligence of humans.



posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Um, I'm on the other side of that coin TC, how could anyone possibly still think that Global Warming is a myth?

Whether it is caused directly by humans or not (the consensus is that it is) it is still something we have to be concerned about. As the possible ramifications for humanity are massive. Can we really just go 'oh its a myth' and carry on our polluting ways, if theres even a slight possibility that we could do something about it?



posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 11:56 PM
link   
So you are saying that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it traps heat, and that we are making a lot of it.
But by saying this, aren't we just correlating a rise in one thing with a rise in something else? Has anyone proven with hard research that not only does this happen in a lab, but it happens the exact same way in nature? Can they conclusively point to CO2 as the ONLY cause of global warming? I won't go so far to say that there is no global warming, because history has shown in the past that it does happen. But that is the thing . . . If it happened hundreds of years BEFORE we were spewing smoke, doesn't that at least cast a shadow of a doubt? I am not saying I don't buy it, but I honestly want to see hard evidence that proves that CO2, or CFC's, or whatever, is DIRECTLY affecting our climate and nothing else could possibly influence. In other words, I will believe it when I see it, and I haven't yet.


Originally posted by JuanBond
let's talk CO2 for a moment...

carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it accelerates the natural warming process of the earth by trapping radiant heat from the sun...

carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels...

fossil fuels are used to produce electricity, and to power cars, airplanes, boats, anything with a internal combustion engine...

these are the two most used things by the greatest majority of the human race...

there are more people on the earth than ever before...

and its just that simple...

we ARE the problem.




posted on Dec, 5 2003 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Perhaps you could go and do some research then?

Can we ignore this just because theres a chance we are not the reason for it?

[Edited on 5-12-2003 by Kano]



posted on Dec, 5 2003 @ 07:03 AM
link   
There are several other threads with information about the thepry of global warming. While these scientist quote what they want us to believe is data, in all actuallity, they are following the predictions of computer models which have been proven inaccurate by viable research into the earth's past and present. I'm not dobting the earth is warming somewhat but we have been globally 10 degrees warmer in the past and will likely have to live with what ever climate change happens. Politicians use global warming to scare and to waste money and neither has anything to do with eco-science or geoscience. The sad thing is when scientist become political. I feel that when we discuss something as fragile as this theory, we get 2 sides. One coming from political emotion and the other from logical science. The two seldom ever do mix well. If the earth is warming, it will continue until it cycles into another age of ice (which we are still technically in btw). Our pityful little bickering might waste more tax-payer money and might suceed in halting the US economic engine(the design of GW to begin with) but we will never change those forces which have dominated the climates on this planet for 4.5 billion years. We're but a tick in the clock of geological time so please, take a moment and allow the insignificance of man to sink in.



posted on Dec, 5 2003 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I, for one, intend to stay firmly on the fence until we have climate models with proven predictive ability. Current models suffer from oversimplicity due to lack of computing power. In the meantime, any sensible proposals for reductions in CO2 emissions deserve consideration.

Of course, few will entertain the obvious solution - some nice shiny new nuclear reactors.


any

posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I still can't believe that people don't think CO2 emissions play a part in the Ozone layer depleting...
Nobody is saying that they are the ONLY source of CO2 emissions, but because we produce so much of it it's causing a problem.



posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Article asserts:
"two top US Government climate experts said."

Well, well, I can certainly provide two climate experts who will say that global warming is a load of hog wash..........


How do we not know that "global warming" is not apart of the solar flare cycles, especially since they are currently showing a relative increased period of solar flarings?
There is a thread on this were a esteemed member of ATS...kukla.... and others, including myself, discussed and presented both sides of this issue....
There is and has been major, heated discussion on "Global Warming" being fact or myth........


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Here's a prime example of what I mentioned above:
"Solar activity reaches new high"
Link:
physicsweb.org...

Excerpt:
"2 December 2003

Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique - which relies on a radioactive dating technique - is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)

Sunspots are produced by magnetic activity inside the Sun. The more active the Sun is, the more spots are produced. Observations of sunspots began in 1610 - soon after the telescope was invented - and no other directly obtained data exists from before this time.

Now, Usoskin and co-workers have used the concentration of beryllium-10 in polar ice as a proxy for historic levels of solar activity. Beryllium-10 is produced when cosmic rays interact with particles in the Earth's atmosphere. The radioisotope then falls to the ground where it is stored in layers of ice. The Sun's magnetic field can deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, so a stronger field should lead to less beryllium-10 being produced, and vice versa."



Found these articles in a cross-reference of the subject matter:
"A 1,000-Year History of Sunspot Numbers"
Link:
www.co2science.org...

Excerpt:
"Both the Medieval and Modern Maximums in sunspot number and solar variability parameters stand out head and shoulders above all other periods of the past thousand years, with the Modern Maximum slightly besting the Medieval Maximum. Due to the many empirical evidences for climate modulation by solar variability, therefore, it is only to be expected, on this basis, that current temperatures may well be higher than at any other time during the past millennium. Since other factors come into play too, however, and since the Medieval and Modern Maximums were not all that different, this conclusion may not be precisely correct. In any event, the observations of this study suggest no need whatsoever for invoking variations in the air's CO2 content as a cause of temperature variations during any period of the past thousand years."

And this: (provides links to this theory)
"Medieval Warm Period -- Solar Influence"
Link:
www.co2science.org...

And:
"Global Warming News"
Link:
www.opinionet.com...


Again, it has been mentioned here at ATS, that between the periods of the 11th century and the 14th, Greenland flourished with farms growing row crops and raising livestock, as did arctic Canada. WOuld this not lend to the argument that Global Warming has virtually nothing to do with human activities, per se'?



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
Um, I'm on the other side of that coin TC, how could anyone possibly still think that Global Warming is a myth?

Whether it is caused directly by humans or not (the consensus is that it is) it is still something we have to be concerned about. As the possible ramifications for humanity are massive. Can we really just go 'oh its a myth' and carry on our polluting ways, if theres even a slight possibility that we could do something about it?


No, Kano, I'm not saying that man is not impacting the environment, just not in global warming. I don't know how it is Down Under, but to give one example, the Everglades are under attack in different ways, but all man-related. Areas that once were under water are now moist, at most, and heavy metals make eating fish a hazard.
Just because one whacked out theory is no more than a myth doesn't mean there aren't other things that certainly need to be repaired.



posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuanBond
let's talk CO2 for a moment...

carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it accelerates the natural warming process of the earth by trapping radiant heat from the sun...

carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels...

fossil fuels are used to produce electricity, and to power cars, airplanes, boats, anything with a internal combustion engine...

these are the two most used things by the greatest majority of the human race...

there are more people on the earth than ever before...

and its just that simple...

we ARE the problem.



then do the world a favor...stop breathing. by doing so you help the world.

or go on a killing spree and THEN kill yourself. or turn yourself in afterwards and claim you were doing it to save the planet. and then sit back and see how many people laugh at you as they throw you in prison.


seriously, if you doom and gloom people really believe we humans are the problem why havent you dont the planet a favor and offed yourself?

if things are so bad and so irreversible why bother continuing to live?

anyone can whine but it takes a certain amount of courage to eb the first the step up and act on the things you believe in.

so are all of you talkers or doers? look like talkers to me, all bark and no bite.



posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Here's anpther interesting article just published recently and I just found:
"Rapid Climate Change -- Summary"
Link:
www.co2science.org...

Excerpt"
"Climate alarmists such as O'Neill and Oppenheimer (2002) regularly invoke the mere possibility of an abrupt-and-rapid warming resulting from the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration as sufficient reason to implement the Kyoto Protocol [see our Editorial of 10 July 2002]. Since almost anything is possible, however, it makes much more sense to consider an event's likelihood when trying to decide what to do about it. One good way of doing this within the context of potential global warming is to see how often rapid climatic changes have occurred in the past and under what circumstances they occurred, especially with respect to the air's CO2 content. Hence, we take this tack in the following paragraphs......"

And another:
"CO2-Temperature Correlations -- Summary"
Link:
www.co2science.org...

Excerpt:
"Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years. Other studies have also documented a fundamental violation of the cause-must-precede-effect principle in the climate alarmist hypothesis of CO2-induced global warming."


Seemingly, when the "Global Warming" agenda and industry fully explains how nearly all the data shows, both short and long term, that warming always precedes CO2 build up, then perhaps the merited attention will be given? *shrugs*


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 6 2003 @ 01:02 PM
link   
energy_wave, you just contradicted yourself:

From your first post:

'No doubt' global warming is real

There can be no doubt that global warming is real and is being caused by people, two top US Government climate experts said.

They say industrial emissions are a leading cause, contradicting critics who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural forces.


But yet, you also say:

... In fact, it is because stratospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere winter/spring are generally slightly warmer than those in the Southern Hemisphere that ozone losses over the Arctic have been much smaller than over the Antarctic during the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the Arctic stratosphere has gradually cooled over the past few decades. Very large ozone losses have been observed there recently, especially in 1997. Why might this be happening, and what is likely to happen in the future?


So, are we warming up? or cooling down? I am confused.



new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join