Global Warming Has Ended

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
I love the way you guys keep dancing around the facts.


Dude, I hate to tell ya, but you are the only one dancing. You make a statement and back it up with links that say the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you are saying. You cited the WMO report to me directly as proof of your claims. I posted links out of that SAME report and blew your argument out of the water.

The bottom line is this ins't a political issue, nor a monetary one. This is about the survival of our species (let alone all the other species on this rock). If we continue to ignore this problem, there wont be anyone left to even argue about it. We cannot afford to let ignorant minds have their say on this topic - there is too much at stake.

I just say an inconvenient truth last night - my god. I had known alot of things, but it is DAMN SCARY to see satalite images of freshwater lakes as little as 30 years ago, and see them again how they look today. There are so many factors that are contributing to it - it ins't even funny. The ONLY arguments against global warming are funded by big business because it ISNT PROFITABLE to make the changes necessary to head this off at the pass. There is a way to fix this though, there are many things we can do. I stronly urge people to educate themselves and vote with your dollar as well as your head.



[edit on 25-1-2007 by LogansRun]




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Sorry to burst your bubble but this is simply not true. CO2 makes up more like about 90% at least of greenhouse effect. Co2 levels are about .05% of the earth's atmosphere, not greenhouse gases, big difference. You got this from that article in the journal you linked to?


Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but you're COMPLETELY wrong, and if you have been studying GW for that many years you would certainly KNOW that GHG's are 90 to 95% water vapor.

Refer back to even Regenmacher's link to realclimate.org and you will see they profess as well, that same amount...so please, dont YOU confuse effect with substance.



Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales.



Source


AB1

Edited for Excerp and source

[edit on 25-1-2007 by alphabetaone]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but you're COMPLETELY wrong, and if you have been studying GW for that many years you would certainly KNOW that GHG's are 90 to 95% water vapor.



Based on YOUR Wikipedia link:

The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%.

Ok, lets look at this again. Water vapor accounts for 36-70% of the greenhouse effect? That is one hell of a margin of error. Even that range is lower than your 90 to 95%. This is a perfect example of junk science. People being paid to cook the books to make everything look a-ok. Who the hell wrote that Wiki article? I usually love them for a resource, but 36-70%?!? That dosn't make any sense.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Again,


Effect is not composition




AB1



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Again,


Effect is not composition
AB1


Again, based on YOUR wiki link:

The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time. Human activity increases the greenhouse effect primarily through release of carbon dioxide, but human influences on other greenhouse gases can also be important.[5] Some of the main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity include:

burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations;

livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions leading to higher methane atmospheric concentrations. Many of the newer style fully vented septic systems that enhance and target the fermentation process also are major sources of atmospheric methane;

use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes.

agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers, that lead to higher nitrous oxide concentrations.


It amazes me that every link posted in this thread to debunk global warming actually lends weight to proving it right. Keep posting these links, they are good ammo for me.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogansRun
It amazes me that every link posted in this thread to debunk global warming actually lends weight to proving it right. Keep posting these links, they are good ammo for me.


When your sole purpose is to be argumentative instead of posting some USEFUL information , why would anyone want to lend any fuel (either to the positive or negative) to you?

No one is trying to debunk a thing other than the MINDSET of Global Warming...not to mention, it still isnt in our hands, and never will be. So worry all you want about this so called "Global Warming" however, if mother nature dictates either for it or to the other extreme, you're still left holding your head in your hands, biting your nails, and arguing about something else now that she had answered it.


AB1



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   


So with the exception of 2005 the years since 1998 have been progressively cooler. 2006 was 6th globally despite being an el nino year (even if it was a moderate/mild one).


Not according to NASA 2005 was the warmest year since the 1890's......and four of the warmest years in the last 110 plus years have happened since 2002 or in the last five years.



[edit on 25-1-2007 by etshrtslr]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
[No one is trying to debunk a thing other than the MINDSET of Global Warming...not to mention, it still isnt in our hands, and never will be. So worry all you want about this so called "Global Warming" however, if mother nature dictates either for it or to the other extreme.


Saying "never will be" is a defeatist mentality that promotes irresponsibility, plus it's completely illogical to use absolutes. It's in our hands, the time has come for ecological stewardship and mastery of our own destiny.

Coming February 2nd to a climate near you:

The U.N. climate report that will shock the world

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


UN climate panel to blame humans for global warming USA Today
"It is very likely that anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century".

The IPCC says "very likely" means at least a 90% probability.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.





[edit on 25-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
When your sole purpose is to be argumentative instead of posting some USEFUL information , why would anyone want to lend any fuel (either to the positive or negative) to you?



No, it isn't being argumentative rather debunking the theory of this thread. This thread states that Global Warming ins't real. Every link to support that mindset is packed full of info that says otherwise. As I said, keep making your points and providing links to support your points, and I will keep using those same links (and the info within) to debunk you. Just because I dont agree with you makes me argumentative? The best scientific minds on the planet concur that GW exists, the ones that dont are on a corporate payroll.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
[No one is trying to debunk a thing other than the MINDSET of Global Warming...not to mention, it still isnt in our hands, and never will be. So worry all you want about this so called "Global Warming" however, if mother nature dictates either for it or to the other extreme, you're still left holding your head in your hands, biting your nails, and arguing about something else now that she had answered it.
AB1


This is partially true, GW is not 100% manmade - no one ever said it was. What scientists are doing however, is showing the correlation between rising Co2 levels and the rise in global temperature. Yes the Earth is naturally warming to some degree, but we are increasing it exponentially at a rate faster than nature can handle. If the earth warms up to fast several things can happen:

large parts of Greenland and the Antarctic could break off causing sea levels to rise 20+ feet (there are already villages that were inhabited less than 20 years ago that are now under feet of water.

Hurricanes and storms increase in size and intensity - Katrina for one?

Huge areas of the world population face a drinking water shortage due to their fresh water supplies drying up an an unprecidented rate.

IF a big enough chunk of greenland were to slide off toward the SE, it could disrupt the natural ocean currents which regulate world temperature. This is a VERY real concern as the ice is melting UNDER the shelf. If the natural ocean currents are disrupted with a large amount of cold, fresh water, it could trigger another ice age exactly like the one that was caused a couple hundred thousand years ago. You see, North America used to be covered by a massive glacier. At the end of an ice age, this melted and created a HUGE lake that covered the majority of the land. The ice that was left breached roughly along the east coast dumping billions upon billions of gallons into the sea - right to where the currents change direction and temperature. This triggered another ice age that lasted roughly 900 years. This is but one possible scenario that could happen.

You may believe that these things are beyond our control, but I happen to like the human race and existance (for that matter) far more than I like being ignorant an ignoring a potential disaster.

So yes, I will continue to debunk anything you throw at me.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
According to the WMO 2005 was NOT the warmest. And 2005 was an El Nino year. Since it apparently matters that 1998 was one. You guys might as well get over the idea that man is behind global warming. It is pure nonsense.

Now I know people like to cherry pick reports of warm in one area or another and spam them over and over to try and establish fact. After this next run of cold weather hits you are going to wish global warming was real.

www.climatepatrol.com...

This stretch of cold weather will be massive. This will be on a scale not seen in a long time. We are starting this year here nearly 5 degrees per day colder than last year and that gap will widen as the month progresses. Feb looks to be even worse. Keep believing the press that comes from the extremely biased UN/IPCC.

Edit:
OH MY GOD. I can't believe it. It looks as if this has happened before. Can you believe it? And every time previous was without man. In fact almost every bit of the latest warming was without a bit of fossil fuel burning. :-)

upload.wikimedia.org...

Look what happened after each big temperature spike. Can you believe it? Nature actually corrected itself.

[edit on 1/27/2007 by Indy]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but you're COMPLETELY wrong, and if you have been studying GW for that many years you would certainly KNOW that GHG's are 90 to 95% water vapor.

Refer back to even Regenmacher's link to realclimate.org and you will see they profess as well, that same amount...so please, dont YOU confuse effect with substance.


You are the one confusing effect with substance. Go back and reread my post. I said:

"CO2 makes up more like about 90% at least of greenhouse . Co2 levels are about .05% of the earth's atmosphere, not greenhouse gases, big difference."

Even the source you quoted gives much different numbers than you say, your source directly contradicts you, however, the information in the Wikipedia article is just plain wrong. Anyone can submit "information" to Wikipedia, and they do. Water vapor in fact, helps to regulate and keep the balance of earth's atmosphere. This is what it's all about, is that the earth's natural regulating sources have been messed with by our human activity. Things are out of balance, so that Earth has trouble getting that back until we humans quit messing with her. If you keep feeding your Mother poison everyday, eventually it accumulates and She dies.

The sources that are saying that water vapor is the biggest cause of GW are just plain wrong. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not not the primary cause of the greenhouse effect because water vapor coalesces into clouds, which reflect radiant energy. When quoting science, it's important to get it from credible sources, not corporate propaganda, of which there is much out there. Here is an article from the NOAA website. NOAA is a government website and one of the best places to get scientific data and info from. NASA would be another one that is good, but not quite as good as NOAA, but these 2 agencies are both excellent resources. There is alot of junk science out there on the internet.

This new "theory" circulating around the internet saying that water vapor is the biggest culprit regarding greenhouse gases is just plain wrong. Someone misinterpreted the info or deliberately did it to confuse people but it's completely wrong, that's not how water vapor works. Water is a regulator, not a contributor to GW effects. Deforestation and descrution of ocean ecology are major contributors because only green plants convert CO2 into oxygen (and sequester carbon).

I got my science information from an award-winning biologist who was in Who's Who 7 times and won awards for teaching biology and global warming, which he did for 20 years at the nation's top public school.

lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Quote from website:

"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
According to the WMO 2005 was NOT the warmest. And 2005 was an El Nino year. Since it apparently matters that 1998 was one. You guys might as well get over the idea that man is behind global warming. It is pure nonsense.

Keep believing the press that comes from the extremely biased UN/IPCC.


The press hype has nothing to do with your cherry picking, dismissing means and averages, and thinking it's a trend. That is not science or statiscal analysis, it's madame Cleo wishcasting. "The man" behind anti-global warming is the military-industrial complex and big oil, and those who support death destruction as a solution.


Your logic says global warming should of stopped in the 40's, 60's, 80's and early 90's...it didn't stop and a few anomalies do not make a long term trend.


NOAA Climate of 2006 - Global Summary

2004 was a mild El Niño year and ended in the first two months of 2005, hardly the same as the El Niño of the century.

El Niño and Global Warming



So you want to use the UN's WMO data but then disregard their upcoming report ? Talk about cherry picking! The IPCC operates under the UN's World Meteorological Organisation, so by your own reasoning then you should throw out your theory based on corrupt data and start using other sources like NASA and the NOAA. That and you insult my Swiss hertitage by distorting facts from a Swiss site.

The only OMG here is your lack of understanding the span of an interglacial period, discounting the role of the sun's solar cycle, cherry picking data, not understanding the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and making excuses for big oil pundits.


The Earth is in an interglacial period now, the last retreat ending about 10,000 years ago. There appears to be a conventional wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts ~12,000 years" but this is hard to substantiate from the evidence of ice core records. For example, an article in Nature[3] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. wiki


An ice age coming any time soon is pure nonsense and it lacks data to support it. Climate change is not about Cheney's one percent insanity.


NASA Scientist Urges Action on Warming CBS
Hansen said samples of the Antarctic ice cap spanning 400,000 years show almost parallel changes in temperatures and greenhouse gasses _ primarily carbon dioxide and methane that until now were produced by natural changes in the earth.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Melting Alps: 'The Future Looks Rather Liquid' LiveScience

VIENNA, Austria (AP)—Glaciers will all but disappear from the Alps by 2050, scientists warned Monday, basing their bleak outlook on mounting evidence of slow but steady melting of the continental ice sheets.

Glacial melting is a global problem, according to the Zurich-based World Glacier Monitoring Service, which keeps tabs on 30 ice sheets in nine mountain ranges worldwide and says their average mass is steadily eroding.

Glaciers are the planet's largest source of fresh water after polar ice, which scientists say also is melting to 100-year lows. In Europe, they're also hugely popular with skiers and snowboarders seeking year-round thrills and help anchor a multimillion-dollar tourist industry.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.





[edit on 27-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy

We are starting this year here nearly 5 degrees per day colder than last year and that gap will widen as the month progresses. Feb looks to be even worse.


I'll take your cold start to the year and raise you an exceptional warm start to the year, following directly on from the warmest year and autumn on record



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
The other thing to keep in mind is that the warming and other global changes are happening at an UNPRECEDENTED rate. We have already undergone and still are undergoing by far the planet's most rapid extinction EVER. Species and plants are undergoing such rapid extinction because they cannot adjust to the changes like they have in the past, because these changes are happening far too rapidly. The fact that these changes are happening at an unprecedented rapid rate, is just another fact to add to the enormous amount of evidence of human-made global warming. At present rates, polar bears and penguins for example aren't expected to survive past 2050 at most, their environment is warming up way too fast for them to adjust. Even if we changed our industrial habits tonite, it would probably still happen because it's takes at least 30 years for anything to take effect in the atmosphere.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
According to the WMO 2005 was NOT the warmest. And 2005 was an El Nino year. Since it apparently matters that 1998 was one. You guys might as well get over the idea that man is behind global warming. It is pure nonsense.



you might want to re read the article. it specifically states that 2005 was an el nino year, HOWEVER it didn't have the same effect as the one from 1998 and wasn't the contributing factor to the unusual heat.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

UNPRECEDENTED rate.


How could you (or anyone alive) possibly know this?



Originally posted by forestlady
We have already undergone and still are undergoing by far the planet's most rapid extinction EVER.


Or this?


Originally posted by forestlady
Species and plants are undergoing such rapid extinction because they cannot adjust to the changes like they have in the past,


Or this? What past? The last 5, 6, 7, 10 thousand years?
Do you truly believe this constitutes any kind of unnatural change?
If so, ask your friendly neighborhood Pterodactyl about that one.


Originally posted by forestlady
because these changes are happening far too rapidly.


For whom?


You can all (AGAIN) worry as much as you like, (AGAIN) mother nature will do exactly as she sees fit with or WITHOUT human influence...and folks, no matter WHAT you'd like to believe, there is not a THING on God's green Earth that any of us can do about it.

Be good people, clean up the environment, make attempts at restoring fractions of the ecosystem, these are all admirable and clearly actions in all of our best interest. Let the species who are their own, determine their fate...they will make the wisest choices with what they have to work with.
In nature there IS no right or wrong, only consequences.


AB1



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
You can all (AGAIN) worry as much as you like, (AGAIN) mother nature will do exactly as she sees fit with or WITHOUT human influence...and folks, no matter WHAT you'd like to believe, there is not a THING on God's green Earth that any of us can do about it.


We can do anything we put our minds and backs too. That includes controlling our enviroment and becoming true stewards of this world. Humanity has infinite potential and capabilities, so damn the non-dreamers and full speed ahead!

Maybe if you didn't promote a quitter or shirker mentality, then you would be seen as having more sense of reason. Plenty luddites said we would never reach the moon or have people in space....so much for those losers. Lucky for us, Edison didn't give up after almost two years of failed attempts with the light bulb either. It's what is defined as the pioneer spirit and you don't get it by surrendering to the fates or making excuses for failure.

When faced with what looks like insurmountable and impossible odds, I will leave you with this to ponder in regards to a surrendering:


We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...

Winston Churchill June 4, 1940


Dyson sphere Wiki
Kardashev scale Wiki


Too Infinity and Beyond!

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Maybe if you didn't promote a quitter or shirker mentality,

It's neither, it's called common sense and faith that a planet which has survived billions of years before humanity will continue to take care of herself.



Originally posted by Regenmacher
then you would be seen as having more sense of reason. [edit on 28-1-2007 by Regenmacher]


I have plenty of sense of reason...seems blatently obvious to ME though that you troll for anyone who has an opposing opinion to yours. That is a bit more indicative of being unreasonable.


AB1



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
It's neither, it's called common sense and faith that a planet which has survived billions of years before humanity will continue to take care of herself.

Humanity doesn't take care of itself with a do nothing attitude and denying risk is not commonsense. Also quit using illogical fallacies and spurious absolutes, if you expect me to think you have a sense of reason.

The only trolling here is your continued insistance that complaceny to degradation is some sort of solution, and then having the gall to complain when I point out this fatuous heresy.


Eco-fatalism is for Wimps UK Times
Ignore the pessimists: we can do a heck of a lot to curb the catastrophic effects of climate change

EARTH’S DOMINANT species is entering its Neo-Fatalistic Period. For a long time, Homo sapiens was in denial that an expanding population would strain the planet. It denied that greenhouse gases were changing the climate. It denied that the problem was man-made. Then suddenly, in less time than it takes for a virus to jump the species barrier, this erstwhile scepticism leapt from denial to despair.

Fatalism is contagious. By wringing their hands about the difficulty of making international agreements, the cost of technology, and public bolshiness, commentators, business people, and (privately) many politicians only encourage inertia about a problem that seems too far off to switch on the danger light in most brains.

Fatalists say we can only adapt, because global warming is too costly to curb. But you can’t “adapt” to a rise in sea level that could wipe out a third of Bangladesh in 30 years. Historically, species have adapted to climate changes by moving to more habitable regions. But on a crowded planet there is nowhere left to go. There are 120 million Bangladeshis. Will they be welcome in India? If the ice keeps melting at its present rate, I am told that Greenland will become habitable in between 1,000 and 5,000 years. By then there could be rather a long queue.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Defeatism is acceptance of defeat without struggle. In everyday use, defeatism has negative connotation and is often linked to treason and pessimism, or even a hopeless situation such as a Catch-22. The term is commonly used in the context of war: a soldier can be a defeatist if he or she refuses to fight because he or she thinks that the fight will be lost for sure or that it is not worth fighting for some other reason.




[edit on 28-1-2007 by Regenmacher]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join