Global Warming Has Ended

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Is it just me? Or does everyone seem to be missing Indy's point...to proclaim a global warming trend would be as misinformed as to proclaim a global cooling trend.

Whether short-term or long-term, climatological flucuations are normal across the globe.

It may become frigid in the tropics and arid in Seattle, however, from a CLIMATE standpoint, these types of Earth changes as indicated by ice core samples, sea sediment, etc. seem to be normal over many millenia. Our current Holocene is what seems to be out of place.

With that in mind, I often wonder are we, as humans, really ignorant enough to think, "hey ok! Mother Nature has leveled out for JUST us and no longer will she feel the need to normalize herself!"...to believe that the cataclysmic events that have plagued this planet since it's birth will just cease to function simply because WE are here? That CO2 in the vicinity of 500 PPM that existed millions of years ago (as opposed to the approx 390 PPM that we have now) was somehow brought on by some rogue alien society that decided to transport all of their vehicular exhaust from Planet Zero to Earth just to fool the Paleoclimatologists into believing that mankind could CERTAINLY not have created such an anamoly?

I clearly see Indy's point... I am of the belief that he's not saying that there is any trend at ALL...no "trend" has ended...I, however, choose to believe that what he's saying is the mindset of global warming should end though.


AB1




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Majority means nothing, and in this case its the "consensus trance", where everyone agrees somethings true only because everyone else does.. Most people agreed the earth was flat once...need i say anymore?

A majority of scientists means a hell of a lot more than those of us making dataless wild guesses. As for flat-earthers, that myth largely died off once they were confronted with the proven data, as does most superstitious nonsense. Lucky for us, our understanding of science has changed or we might be argueing on how to cook the buffalo instead of climatology.


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The one thing that demonstrates to me there is more going on than just Greenhouse gases is that Tectonic activity is also increasing both in magnitude and frequency, its not just the weather thats changing.

I have not seen tetonic activity increasing in frequency, so where did you get this data from? How long term is this study? Why doesn't thermal energy and melting sea ice effect plate tectonics?

Greenhouse gases that change atmospheric fluid dynamics are just one part of climate change, so who's saying that it's the only factor?







[edit on 24-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Is it just me? Or does everyone seem to be missing Indy's point...to proclaim a global warming trend would be as misinformed as to proclaim a global cooling trend.

Whether short-term or long-term, climatological flucuations are normal across the globe.


I would say our rising temp phase will eventually end too and climate change happens, but most of us tend to be survivalists, want to see our kids grow old, and thus we find solutions in order control our fates....rather than leaving it up to nature to bring us to death.

Why wouldn't you say the temperatures will continue to rise, considering the data and climate models keeps saying it will? What has changed to indicate we are cooling or leveled off? What are your reasons? Is it less cars, less people, less pollution, more ice, more foliage, less desert, more clouds, more rain? Most weather forecasting is based on trend analysis and data, so do you have data that says otherwise?

As for CO2, you need look at the different isotopes and you will see the difference between anthropologic and natural CO2. Plus, there's more to global average temperature rise than just carbon dioxide.

The Human Hand in Climate Change



[edit on 24-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
wouldn't you say the temperatures will continue to rise, considering the data and climate models keeps saying it will? What has changed to indicate we are cooling or leveled off? What are your reasons? Is it less cars, less people, less pollution, more ice, more foliage, less desert, more clouds, more rain? Most weather forecasting is based on trend analysis and data, so do you have data that says otherwise?


The "models" say it will...listen to yourself, MODELS. Whilst they mite claim to be accurate, they may well be missing various important factors from which to make a conclusion.

And a majority of scientists means nothing i assure you. Science is based upon observation and evidence. Thus, what science can not see or measure, it ignores.

One thing you mite want to think about;

Surface water evapouration has been DECREASING steadily for over 75 years; The amount of water that evapourates in sunlight. Yet, temperatures as u say are supposedly rising...how is less sunlight reaching the earths surface causing the temp to rise?


Kinda blows a hole in the global warming theory that does.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   


The WMO states that 2005 was the warmest on record AFTER 1998. They also state that 2006 was the 6th warmest on record. 2004 was the 4th warmest. 2003 was the 3rd warmest. 2002 was the 2nd warmest. What does that say? That means 2002 wasn't as warm as 1998. 2003 wasn't as warm as 2002. 2004 wasn't as warm as 2003. And of course now 2006 wasn't as warm as 2004. So from 1998 to 2006 the ranking has dropped from 1st to 6th. The fact that you see consecutive years like 2002, 2003 and 2004 being cooler each year with only 2005 breaking trend between 2004 and 2006.


What your saying is not even close to being statistically valid or significant.

According to NASA the years 1999, 2000, 2001 were cooler than 1998, 2002,2003, 2004 ,2005.

So if you start the trend in 2001 it has been getting warmer every year since then not cooler. or you could say 2002, 2003 ,2004, and 2005 were all warmer than 2001 with 2005 being the warmest.

Any time you take such a small sample you can manipulate a trend to be whatever you want.

www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 24-1-2007 by etshrtslr]

[edit on 24-1-2007 by etshrtslr]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
i just wonder if the changing ocean currents and the changing jet stream currents are the culprits..?

the melting ice, could just be the result of warm air & warmer water intrusions into the historically frozen areas in the Arctic & Antarctic...

in essence, its not really the temperature of the globe that's causing the observable changes in glaciers, ice packs, sea ice...
it's moreso the premature or the delayed (i.e. untimely) movement of standard temperature air & water into these historically frigid zones,

if, the seasonal tilt & the ammount of sunlight along with a pretty standard ocean & atmosphere 'converor belts' have built up & sustained these ice caps for ages & eons...then something else is the real catalyst & not global warming

i would like to see the scientists concentrate on another likely cause.
i submit that the N. & S. ice regions are getting abnormal warm air & water assaults, at the wrong times of the year, from different directions, and that is what's causing the dis-equilibrium....the apparent 'Global Warming' is merely a product of the changing currents & not the cause

my .02



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
if, the seasonal tilt & the ammount of sunlight along with a pretty standard ocean & atmosphere 'converor belts' have built up & sustained these ice caps for ages & eons...then something else is the real catalyst & not global warming


You're right St Udio.

I submit that other areas of undersea volcanic activity like this:

Scientists Discover Undersea Volcano Off Antarctica

Are probably prime suspects. The aforementioned is a find from May, 2004...and we wonder why things are heating up above it?

Not to mention with THAT, comes increased evaporation .. ie., more GHG's, ie., the "warming" that people are seeing. Not Global warming, but ocean warming.


AB1



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The "models" say it will...listen to yourself, MODELS. Whilst they mite claim to be accurate, they may well be missing various important factors from which to make a conclusion.

They don't claim, many ARE PROVEN accurate time and time again.


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
And a majority of scientists means nothing i assure you. Science is based upon observation and evidence. Thus, what science can not see or measure, it ignores.

You have assured me of nothing, but more dataless subjective opinions and a bizarro view of reality. If you can't measure or detect it, then how do you know it's there? Ignoring means you can detect it...


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Surface water evapouration has been DECREASING steadily for over 75 years; The amount of water that evapourates in sunlight. Yet, temperatures as u say are supposedly rising...how is less sunlight reaching the earths surface causing the temp to rise?

So you want to introduce this linkless observational weather data, but at the same time you dismiss reputable and linked meteorological data, and I am suppose to believe your crystal ball heresay? Get real...


The average average Global temperature IS RISING, go look at the data and show me where it isn't! Where this data that says surface water evaporation has decreased over the last 75 years that proves there's no global warming? While your at it, where's that data that says earthquake frequency is increasing?

Here go enlighten yourself, I have had about enough of this fiction:

Global Dimming and climate models
RealClimate

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
i just wonder if the changing ocean currents and the changing jet stream currents are the culprits..?


For starters, it is recognized that all earthly weather starts at the sun.

Can you show me how heat and greenhouse gases have no effect ocean currents and atmospheric winds? Wrong times, would indicate our orbit and tilt has changed, you have data to support this?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

...it is recognized that all earthly weather starts at the sun.




Where does the sun's weather start?





posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
The average average Global temperature IS RISING, go look at the data and show me where it isn't!

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Regenmacher]


So? That does not mean its global warming. You've just accepted that theory as truth because the mainstream scientists say its true...The same guys who tell us that 9/11 was the result of Osama, the same people who neglect the dangers of Aspartame and Fluorine, etc ad infinitum.

The surface evapouration bit i saw on the BBC's panorama when it delt with GW, but this site says the same thing;

www.ornl.gov...

Meanwhile, both solar radiation and pan evaporation have decreased in most parts of China, with solar radiation decreasing 3.1 W/m2 per decade and pan evaporation decreasing 39mm per decade

Show me that Global warming has been "PROVEN" as you said..oh wait, u can't, because its all half complete analysis and theory..



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Surface water evapouration has been DECREASING steadily for over 75 years; The amount of water that evapourates in sunlight. Yet, temperatures as u say are supposedly rising...how is less sunlight reaching the earths surface causing the temp to rise?

Kinda blows a hole in the global warming theory that does.




Hmmm. Looks like you're trying to use fresh water depletion data to disprove climate change.

Won't work.




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Where does the sun's weather start?


Most would conquer that Sun's energy is produced by nuclear fusion which in turn causes its weather. You have another theory?

spdf.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I will admit a small part of our weather is caused by our molten core, where as the sun maintain's our molten core. No sun, no weather, no molten core and no humans.

All hail Ra giver of life



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Why wouldn't you say the temperatures will continue to rise, considering the data and climate models keeps saying it will?


I wouldn't, necessarily...in fact, to the contrary, I think i'm saying that it probably will.


Originally posted by Regenmacher

What has changed to indicate we are cooling or leveled off? What are your reasons? Is it less cars, less people, less pollution, more ice, more foliage, less desert, more clouds, more rain? Most weather forecasting is based on trend analysis and data, so do you have data that says otherwise?



Nothing, none, no, no, no, maybe, no, no, yes, yes and maybe

Nothing to indicate we are cooling or leveled off, not enough data to suggest one way or the other.
For clarity, im not suggesting any type of trend so I have no reasons.
No, not less cars.
No, not less people.
No, not less pollution.
Maybe more ice...while the ice seems to be melting quickly at the outer bands, there is evidence to suggest at the poles themselves it may be growing thicker.
No, not more foliage.
No, not less desert.
Yes, more cloud cover.
Yes, more rain.
Weather forecasting is based on trend analysis and data....now how can I have data that says that data is NOT the way to forecast weather...lmao...so um, maybe I do and maybe I dont, but if i WERE to come up with this data, there of course would have to be data that claims that data IS in fact the way to go, what a vicious circle.


Originally posted by Regenmacher

As for CO2, you need look at the different isotopes and you will see the difference between anthropologic and natural CO2. Plus, there's more to global average temperature rise than just carbon dioxide.


Which was, of course, exactly my point...with so many points to take into account, something as miniscule (especially when on average it encompasses in the vicinity of .05% to .25% of the overall Greenhouse Gasses) as CO2 can not POSSIBLY be the major cause.



AB1



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
We are talking about GLOBAL averages since this is GLOBAL warming. Remember during the 70's it was global cooling. Then the patterns changed and it was global warming. Well the patterns have changed again. The warming has stopped and the temperatures are trending back downward.

If today was 80 and tomorrow was 79 would you say tomorrow was warmer? Of course not. That is where we are at now. Not only is tomorrow not warmer neither were the next 7 days after that. There is no longer a warming trend. It ended 8 years ago. Sorry to burst the global warming bubble but the temperatures have been slipping back. It is no longer getting warmer. To say it is getting warmer is to say that 76, 77 and 78 degrees are all warmer than 80.


What supporting links or info do you have to back up your claims? Also, what credentials do you have other than your personal interpretation of this? I am curious as I dont agree with your logic - but then again, I am no climate expert. All I know is that I am in Oregon and my tree in the back yard is starting to bloom again - THAT is unheard of. Global warming is very much a real thing, all you need to do is study the receding ice shelf - very scary stuff.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Seriously, what is up with people saying "global warming is real because the ice is melting/temperatures are rising".

That itself is not evidence of GW, it is just evidence that something is happening to our planet.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Which was, of course, exactly my point...with so many points to take into account, something as miniscule (especially when on average it encompasses in the vicinity of .05% to .25% of the overall Greenhouse Gasses) as CO2 can not POSSIBLY be the major cause.


Okay, I respect your wait and see approach. As for me, based on observational data of the sun and a lack of geophysical data that says we are cooling off, I have to agree with majority of world's climatologists and the billions they spent on climate modeling that tell us "the average global temperature will continue to rise". I don't believe all these mets would stake there reputations on Tom Foolery either and I know several of them.

As for CO2 not being the major cause, that would mean you have show other data that completely disproves this hypothesis, before your hypothesis becomes widely accepted. Otherwise is just a subjective opinion.



[edit on 24-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Seriously, what is up with people saying "global warming is real because the ice is melting/temperatures are rising".

That itself is not evidence of GW, it is just evidence that something is happening to our planet.



The ice shelf is but one of MANY factors that support the idea of GW. The ocean current is like the main engine for the regulation of planetary climate, and it is slowing. Large chunks of ice the size of small states are breaking free. Every year, when it re freezes, there is less and less ice pack. Polar bears, penguins and many other arctic creatures potentially face extinction if nothing is done. Bottom line, the Earth is warming up. Man's CO2 emissions are helping this to happen at a faster than normal rate. Just because you dont agree with it doesn't mean it isn't true. One other thing, the majority of anti GW research is funded by the very industries that are causing it to happen; i.e. coal, oil, gas, etc. There is really no debate on it anymore, the evidence is overwhelming. Some people prefer to keep their heads in the sand, this is scary as this affects EVERYONE on this rock.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The same guys who tell us that 9/11 was the result of Osama, the same people who neglect the dangers of Aspartame and Fluorine, etc ad infinitum.

Show me that Global warming has been "PROVEN" as you said..oh wait, u can't, because its all half complete analysis and theory..


The world's meteorologists have nothing to do with blaming Osama or selling dangerous chemicals.

You gave me a link to a site that concludes global warming is real and China's lack of evaporation is due to pollution, so you nullified your own fiction. So where's the quake data or did you make up that bs too? Go read about global dimming and learn something new.


Combining these results with findings of previous studies, we postulate that increasing human-made aerosol burden (mainly SO2) has produced a fog-like haze over much of China that has increasingly reflected and absorbed solar radiation and resulted in less solar radiation reaching the surface, despite concurrent decreasing trends in cloud amount and increasing trends in cloud-free sky.

www.ornl.gov...


If you're unable see the average global temperature data, can't see global temperature has been rising at 0.2 C/decade and can't see the massive amount of climate data that has been submitted, I have nothing to say but hasta la vista and good luck on Krypton.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
As for CO2 not being the major cause, that would mean you have show other data that completely disproves this hypothesis, before your hypothesis becomes widely accepted. Otherwise is just a subjective opinion.



True it would, and from this study by prominent atmospheric scientist and mountaineer, Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.



This nuclear heat, however, plays a minor role among the terrestrial factors, in comparison with the “greenhouse effects” caused by
absorption by some atmospheric gases of the solar radiation reflected from the surface of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the average
near-surface air temperature would be –18°C, and not +15°C, as it is now. The most important among these “greenhouse gases” is water vapor,
which is responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFCs,N2O, and O3), the most
important is CO2, which contributes only 3 percent to the total greenhouse effect. The manmade CO2 contribution to this effect may be about 0.05
to 0.25 percent.


Full Study here

would concur with my hypothesis.


AB1





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join