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.

 

Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Once again Muaddib browbeats and will eventually kill this thread because people get sick of have to wade through his endless posts in his constant attempts to shout down any opposition to HIS views. He did the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, Weapons of Mass Distraction and god knows what else... and heaven help you if you disagree with him. He will insult and belittle you to no end even onto other posts, question your intelligence and behave like a petulant little boy because you don't agree with him. I know he has done the same to me and and I have witnessed him do it to others as well. AND he is the one who bewails my comments and says I attack people.

To set the record straight when I referred to fools earlier I was talking about posts such as perplexed which contributed nothing to the discussion except a belligerent attitude. Later I responded to a swipe at me from flyers fan that assumed among other things that I am from another country and that I was anti-American. Neither of which is true. I was not attacking darkbluesky or anyone else.

IF and I do mean If because it will never happen, he were to go a go and read through all the threads on here discussing global warming not once will you find an assertion from me that man is the sole cause of it, nor do I ever outright dismiss the info he presents. I have in fact read quite a bit of what he posts on it and I will say it is all interesting.

What I do however (and apparently it really bites his butt) is to point out quite accurately that while he accuses me and others of cherry picking our info and interpreting things to suit our view points..... that he is guilty of exactly the same thing and at least I have the honesty to admit it. It is the very nature of sites like this that members chose what is interesting to them, or supports their viewpoints, to post. We may deny bias but it is everywhere here and part of what makes this site so interesting.

He also claims that I (and others) twist his (and others) words around... well so doesn't he.

Also in the vast majority, if not all of the articles that he quotes from, it is he, Muaddib, who has drawn the conclusion that they refute the notion that humans contribute to global warming, not the scientists writing the papers. If that is not muddying the waters I do not know what is.


[edit on 24-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by grover]




posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, one more thing, as I have said in the past, I do believe we have to be concious of our environment.

Yes, human activities do have an effect on the environment, but the "Climate" is affected by natural mechanisms which are out of man's hands.

You want to curb pollution, that's awesome, we should do that, but blaming mankind for Climate Change is not helping any, it just gives the excuse to the policymakers to make people feel guilty about something they can't change, no matter how hard we try, and it gives them the excuse to tax you more trying to fix something they can't fix...

Even the IPCC report says no matter what we do, even if we cut all emissions right now, and stop all of mankind's activities, Climate Change will continue to happen.

Abrupt Climate Change has happened in Earth's history hundreds if not thousands of times.

They have happened before mankind crawled out of whatever hole we were in, and will continue to happen even after we are gone.

If you want to "curb pollution", then fight to "curb pollution"....don't try to use "Climata Change" as an excuse when we have no say whatsoever on these natural cycles of change.

The history of Earth has not been one of "balance", it has been one which is controlled by chaos.

There are only small periods of time when the Climate is optimum for the human race to thrive in, but as past civilizations have shown, Climate Change can destroy civilizations if they are not ready, and bickering and spending billions of dollars trying to bicker back and forth and trying to stop something we have no control over is not going to help any.

We should be planning to prepare for these changes, not try to change something we can't control.


[edit on 22-2-2007 by Muaddib]


For once I agree with everything Muaddib has said in this post BUT I will add this, the majority of science I have read on the matter do not claim that we are the sole cause of global warming but that we do contribute to it. That being said, if on an off chance we can perhaps not stop it but ameliorate it, why shouldn't we? Better discretion than foolhardiness.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Once again Muaddib browbeats and will eventually kill this thread because people get sick of have to wade through his endless posts in his constant attempts to shout down any opposition to HIS views.


I already posted several excerpts and links which proof "it is not only my view"....

And me browbeating?... Naa, i am not the one who insulted everyone else's intelligence because they don't agree with Grover's political affiliations....




Originally posted by grover
He did the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, Weapons of Mass Distraction and god knows what else... and heaven help you if you disagree with him.


what the hell does that have anything to do with this thread?...

Who is trying to confuse and derail the thread?.... It is obviously the one person who "can't make informed decisions hence has to blame others for what he lacks...



Originally posted by grover
He will insult and belittle you to no end even onto other posts, question your intelligence and behave like a petulant little boy because you don't agree with him.


Really? are you looking in the mirror and talking about yoruself?... Because last i saw in this same thread it has been you who has said and I quote:


Originally posted by grover
....and still love it, regardless. Something you right wing idiots have yet to figure out.



Originally posted by grover
Whining and complaining that they are being attacked when someone points out that either the emperor has no clothes or that they have no brain....
Typically right wing.


Wow... humm.... i guess you now will try to claim that "Muaddib hacked into ATS and wrote that making everyone think it was me".....right grover?....




Originally posted by grover
Also in the vast majority, if not all of the articles that he quotes from, it is he, Muaddib, who has drawn the conclusion that they refute the notion that humans contribute to global warming, not the scientists writing the papers. If that is not muddying the waters I do not know what is.


Is that so?...

So i guess i also hacked into the mind of a couple hundred scientists and made them say things like..


A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists has announced today the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.

The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as:

- Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.

- Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

- Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

- Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

- Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: www.warwickhughes.com

- Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist

www.scoop.co.nz...


Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
.....................
When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

www.canada.com...

The above are only two of the dozens of excerpts i have given, including from the scientists who reviewed the IPCC report..... and if you actually "cared" to read the other excerpts and links I have been giving, you would know that i didn't put any words in any "scientist's mouth"...

Later grover...keep yelling and screaming all you want, the truth will still come out.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
If you are so bloody objective why the hell don't you copy my entire quote and what I was responding to instead of taking it out of context and making it look like an ad hoc attack?


you grow tedious, boring and predictable.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
If you are so bloody objective why the hell don't you copy my entire quote and what I was responding to instead of taking it out of context and making it look like an ad hoc attack?


Maybe because after all, you did insult all "Republicans"?...regardless of what you are now trying to claim you were doing...



Originally posted by grover
you grow tedious, boring and predictable.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by grover]


I guess you are still looking yourself in the mirror... but can you still discuss, in your own words, Climate Change and refute with facts any of the information which disagrees with your claims?...



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
[quote/]The report was the first of four to be released this year by the panel, which was created by the United Nations in 1988. It found:

--Global warming is "very likely'' caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. That's the strongest expression of certainty to date from the panel.

--If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

--But if the world does get greenhouse gas emissions under control -- something scientists say they hope can be done -- the best estimate is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

--Sea levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Add another 4 to 8 inches if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues




So the UN scientists are basically full of it, and the info that you present is by your scientists is all true? I'm starting to see what Grover is saying. That is the pot calling the kettle black I'm afraid.


[edit on 24-2-2007 by kleverone]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by kleverone]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
I know of a way to make an abundance of Hydrogen fuel, so does the government. The last inventor who had this technology was not approved by the US government. They said he was a fraud. When the European governments approved his work, he unexpectedly died.

Stan Meyer, look up Hydrogen booster. The physics we learn in the US is slightly different than that in European countries. I work with someone from Russia and they know that the US is teaching Pro US and Pro Oil science.


Im American and highschool, and ill be the first to admit that America is a huge contributor to global, but as far as teaching pro oil science, i know that my science teacher has showed a documentary on global warming in class and is going to show parts of the inconvient truth, and its amazing to see the change in people opinions after watching one documentary. Maybe this is what we need to do to fix the problem.

But then of course some exxon mobil paid scientist would come out and try to refute the calims in the documentary with his favorite kind of science. The kind with Psuedo infront of it.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ressiv
lolll the outburst of the volcano PINATUBA puts moore co2 in the air as we produced teh last 200 years!!!!!.....global warming is a natural process...ofcourse you canput human role in it..but it wo'nt make any differance in the natural process!


alrigth if it little to do with us, why is it warming faster than ever before, why is ice melting at a continually quicker rate, why is there more C02 in the atmosphere than any other time in the known history of earth.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
To my fellow skeptics,

Were 'gonna loose this one. SmokeyTheBear is a prime example of the way our kids are being programed.

Hello New World Environmental Order



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
To my fellow skeptics,

Were 'gonna loose this one. SmokeyTheBear is a prime example of the way our kids are being programed.

Hello New World Environmental Order


i guess your the prime example of our ignorance and the human spirit that will allow us to turn our back on the porblems we played a large part in. I guess those 8 billion tons of C02 going into the atmosphere had nothing to do with us. Or those 150,000 square kilometers of deforestation had nothing to do with us. A C02 level of 380 ppm, a level it has never reached in the last 450000 years probably means nothing either. Warming trend... right
No, no its not over, assuming that youve even got this far into the post with out cursing and dismissing it before going to the exxon mobil website for your global warmng facts. Well to continue on, estimates put C02 at 700-800 ppm by 2100, double what it has ever been before in teh known history of earth. This would result in an average temperature of 3.5 degrees farenheit(More at the poles with that cold stuff we call ice.) if 2100 sounds very far away, how about other estimates of 550 ppm by 2050.

www.dhushara.com...

thats the change of C02 concentrations from the last 1000. But quick, turn away, we are far to noble a species to do anything so wrong.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone

--Sea levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Add another 4 to 8 inches if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues



www.abovetopsecret.com...

review this post and please adress the 8% increase in ice coverage of the south pole.



Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear


thats the change of C02 concentrations from the last 1000. But quick, turn away, we are far to noble a species to do anything so wrong.


why single out a factor like CO2 ? it's neither the strongest nor the most prominent greenhouse gas. do you understand the concept of saturation? well, if you completely block out a wavelength, adding more will not change squat or at least not very much.

answer me if climate changes in the past can possibly be attributed to evil, SUV driving species which are now mysteriously forgotten?! beliving that everything revolves around yourself is the ultimate hubris.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Id like for you to adress the breaking off of the Larson B ice shelf in a matter of i believ 3 weeks, at the very same south pole.

and no i dont think the world revolves around us, and yes global warming is due in some part to natural changes, but we are the dominent species and should be held responsible for our own actions which are clearly increasing the effects of what should be a natural change



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Arbitrary nonsense does not distinguish a genuine article from its homomorphic allotrope: complete bull#. There is no advanced evidence or supermitigated concerted circle of scientist who are the know all end all labirnth of knowledge dispelling the truth to all of mankind. Take it for what it is, for what it is worth.

Nothing more precious than the ability to think, and concurent with the nature of man is the ability to substitute rational thought with the precursed adiabetic flow of fact and honesty, which often enough do not occur together. The moral sense of right in wrong and a plague on the horizon will not change the fundamental discharge coming from everyon's rot:"me, me, me".

You cannot change this and you will not change this. Go on prancing through the spelling bee of pie chart and graph and continue to enamour yourself with that reichous liberal sense of servitude at an altruistic cost. Becuase, at the end of the day, it will not matte whether global warming exist or does not exist, people simply will not care with your "oh my god atmospheric concentration of CO2 went up .003%".



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
..................
But then of course some exxon mobil paid scientist would come out and try to refute the calims in the documentary with his favorite kind of science. The kind with Psuedo infront of it.


Is that what your teacher from High School is teaching you?...

What a perfect way to stop all the evidence which disproves that mankind is at fault for Climate Change... Start the brainwashing with the High School students....


Kid, that is one of the most foolish claims you can believe... Most of the scientists which disagree with the whole claim that mankind caused Climate Change, are not being paid by "Exxon or any oil companies to vindicate them"....

Such a claim only shows ignorance and nothing more.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone

So the UN scientists are basically full of it, and the info that you present is by your scientists is all true? I'm starting to see what Grover is saying. That is the pot calling the kettle black I'm afraid.


First of all, most of the scientists which participated in the IPCC summary, or the report were not asked their opinion on what the data shows... I already gave excerpts to what at least 4 of the scientists, out of the 30 who supposedly participated in the IPCC summary had to say about the whole process.

There were some that even left the IPCC, such as.


Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...

Here are some more comments from IPCC scientists.


Real report under wraps

By DR. TIM BALL, GUEST COLUMNIST

We are told hundreds of scientists played a role in writing the UN climate science report released last week. We are also told it proves that scientists agree -- human release of carbon dioxide is the primary cause of climate change and a catastrophe looms.

Fortunately, this is nonsense.

The report just released is merely the 'Summary for Policymakers,' an executive summary of the main report that no one outside a select group sworn to secrecy knows the contents of until May.

Why would the main report and its summary not be issued together?

According to official IPCC procedures, the main science report shall be modified after publication of the summary, so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary. But surely it is the summary that should be edited to reflect the contents of the science report it is supposedly summarizing.
.............
To understand why the IPCC does this, Canadians need to appreciate that the summary is not a scientifically neutral document. It is written to fulfill political objectives in support of carbon dioxide-reduction negotiations.
........................
IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains: The summary "represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists."

Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.

..........................
This unorthodox reporting procedure led to the "Chapter 8 controversy" in 1995, in which significant and unwarranted modification of the IPCC science report was known to have been made before it was issued, so as to conform to the summary.

The fact many scientists were involved in reviewing the science report to be released in the spring does not necessarily mean these scientists agree with the report. NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed the IPCC ignored his comments entirely.

NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official IPCC reviewer, speaks about his own experience: "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying. It is not like the scientific press, where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."

www.ottawasun.com...

BTW, some people have claimed that all the editors of the New scientist who quit, were in favour of anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming... i just found what one of those editors had to say about his reasons for leaving.


February 11, 2007

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

So please, next time you want to try to claim that anyone is "the pot calling the kettle back", you should make sure you know what you are talking about.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I believe when it comes to the debate over global warming, and its causes, be it man-made, or natural cycles, or a combination of both. Many have already made their minds up, which if you will pardon my saying so, is quite arrogant and ignorant.

If you really want to take an analytical look into the subject and actually research the topic you'll find enough to support just about all theories related to global warming, and if you have a particular stance or leaning, perhaps political motive, you will find and present information that supports your argument. In the end this does little to get to the actual unbiased data. So it is a debate no one can win.

If you have an open mind, and are not subject or preconceived motivating factors, and do some actual real research... You may be surprised where the data leads you.

Rather than try to predict an unknown future, why not just look at the trends in global temperature and weather anomalies over the last several decades. There are many ups and downs, but the overall trend (like the stock market) is up... as in global average temperatures are increasing, and in the last few years that upward trend seems to be accelerating. Something is causing it. Glaciers are melting, and some are already gone, many were there for thousands of years and are now a small fraction of what they once were. Polar ice is melting at a rapid rate... Etc.

No good will come from a debate with many key players basing their arguments on preconceived notions. Critical thinking and real research are what this topic requires, and deserves. Lets go where the data takes us, and not where someone wants us to look. The truth no matter what the cause or ultimate effect, will be revealed at some point.

Just my thoughts.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Cutting ALL CO2 emissions would reduce global average temps by 1/7th of one degree, at the same time destroying the economies of every advanced nation.

Atmospheric water vapor and sun spot activity have the largest effect on global temps; it's been that way since the first single cell organism roamed the sea.

So..... shall we put a shade in space? Cut down all the trees, of which one mature Maple tree exhausts 100,000 gallons of water vapor per year into the atmosphere?

Interesting to note that the IPCC said, in their own words (paraphrased) that the figures from the study would not be complete for at least a month, and if the data shows a different result from the report given to the UN, they would CHANGE THE DATA to reflect their views.

For those with an open mind, go to www.sepp.org and check out the articles on the front page; then the "Research" link on the left, from which the following is one snippet:

Global sea level (SL) has undergone a rising trend for at least a century; its cause is believed to be unrelated to climate change [1]. We observe, however, that fluctuations (anomalies) from a linear SL rise show a pronounced anti-correlation with global average temperature--and even more so with tropical average sea surface temperature. We also find a suggestive correlation between negative sea-level rise anomalies and the occurrence of El Nino events. These findings suggest that--under current conditions-- evaporation from the ocean with subsequent deposition on the ice caps, principally in the Antarctic, is more important in determining sea-level changes than the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water. It also suggests that any future moderate warming, from whatever cause, will slow down the ongoing sea-level rise, rather than speed it up. Support for this conclusion comes from theoretical studies of precipitation increases [2] and from results of General Circulation Models (GCMs) [3,4]. Further support comes from the (albeit limited) record of annual ice accumulation in polar ice sheets [5].

1. A. Trupin and J. Wahr. Geophys J. Int., 100, 441-453 (1990)
2. D. Bromwich. "Ice sheets and sea level" Nature, 373, 18 (1995)
3. S.L. Thompson, and D. Pollard. Eos 76, No. 46 Suppl.(1995); J. Clim. (1997)
4. H. Ye and J.R. Mather, Int. J. Climatol., 17, 155-162 (1997)
5. D.A. Meese et al., Science 266, 1680-1682 (1994)


Then peruse the Key Issues link, also on the left.

And, for those who claim "yeah..... those guys receive funding from oil companies" ...... or some such nonsense: that would mean providing concrete data from anyone who agrees with you puts that very data in question. Hmmmmm........ wouldn't that apply equally no matter what side of the issue you're on?

Oh yeah....... the old saw about America being the largest polluter compared to our population..... is a red herring. A more appropriate comparison would be to our production, meaning goods and services. Do the math on that one and you'll find America is the least polluting country... and we help feed two thirds of the world to boot.

Questions anyone? Algore... barking moonbat!



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
You cannot expect to dump thousands if not millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year and expect it to have no effect whatsoever on global climate systems. The biggest threat now is China. The economy there is growing so rapidly that they are scrambling to build facilities to power all the "necessities" of everyday life. Do you realize they plan to construct an average of one coal power plant a week for the next ten years? The technology they are using is outdated and dirty. Maybe Mother Earth can handle one industrial waste giant, but as the rest of the world becomes "Americanized" we will really begin to see the devastating impact mankind can have on the earth.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
Id like for you to adress the breaking off of the Larson B ice shelf in a matter of i believ 3 weeks, at the very same south pole.
..



does finding the carcass of an animal mean the speices is going extinct?

The question is simple why not answer it: was there an 8% increase in ice coverage at the South Pole since 1978 ?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Yes, there have been icebergs breaking up, and ice mass loss in areas, but there is also places where ice mass is increasing.. How do you explain that?

BTW, in case you didn't know, the ice mass of the world has been in constant fluctuation for most of the 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around.

In fact ice used to cover most of the U.S. and Europe during the last Ice Age, and research has shown that there was abrupt warming events which increased temperatures over Greenland by 5-10 degrees Celsius in a few decades.


October 4, 2006

Sudden decreases in temperature over Greenland and tropical rainfall patterns during the last Ice Age have been linked for the first time to rapid changes in the salinity of the north Atlantic Ocean, according to research published Oct. 5, 2006, in the journal Nature. The results provide further evidence that ocean circulation and chemistry respond to changes in climate.

Using chemical traces in fossil shells of microscopic planktonic life forms, called formanifera, in deep-sea sediment cores, scientists reconstructed a 45,000- to 60,000-year-old record of ocean temperature and salinity. They compared their results to the record of abrupt climate change recorded in ice cores from Greenland. They found the Atlantic got saltier during cold periods, and fresher during warm intervals.

"The freshening likely reflects shifts in rainfall patterns, mostly in the tropics," Howard Spero of the University of California at Davis said. "Suddenly, we're looking at a record that links moisture balance in the tropics to climate change. And the most striking thing is that a measurable transition is happening over decades."

Spero, who is currently on leave at the National Science Foundation's Marine Geology and Geophysics Program, worked with lead author Matthew Schmidt of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Maryline Vautravers of Cambridge University in the United Kingdom to conduct the research.

During the Ice Age, much of North America and Europe was covered by a sheet of ice. But the ice records the scientists reconstructed show repeated patterns of sudden warming, called Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycles, when temperatures in Greenland rose by 5 to 10 degrees Celsius over a few decades.

www.nsf.gov...

How do you explain that these same changes have happened in the past, several times, even faster than they are happening this time around, and at times when mankind did not have cars, factories, AC, etc?....

How do you even explain, that the Global sea level trends during the 1920-1945, is comparable to the Global sea level trends during 1993-2000?

How do you explain that the "it's all mankind's fault crowd" don't tell you that the Global sea level during those time periods have been equal?


Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records

S. Jevrejeva

Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

A. Grinsted

Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

J. C. Moore

Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

S. Holgate

Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

Abstract
We analyze the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database of sea level time series using a method based on Monte Carlo Singular Spectrum Analysis (MC-SSA). We remove 2–30 year quasi-periodic oscillations and determine the nonlinear long-term trends for 12 large ocean regions. Our global sea level trend estimate of 2.4 ± 1.0 mm/yr for the period from 1993 to 2000 is comparable with the 2.6 ± 0.7 mm/yr sea level rise calculated from TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter measurements. However, we show that over the last 100 years the rate of 2.5 ± 1.0 mm/yr occurred between 1920 and 1945, is likely to be as large as the 1990s, and resulted in a mean sea level rise of 48 mm. We evaluate errors in sea level using two independent approaches, the robust bi-weight mean and variance, and a novel “virtual station” approach that utilizes geographic locations of stations.

www.agu.org...

And in fact another reasearch paper has proven that sea level rises in this decade has been less dramatic as to what happened during the 1904-1953 time period. How can the "mankind is at fault alarmists explain this?... Oh they will try to explain it away. They might tell you things like, "variations in sea level are to be expected"...but aren't they claiming that "now we have had a more dramatic increase in sea level and the loos of ice mass than ever before"?....


GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007

On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century

S. J. Holgate

Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

Received 17 October 2006; accepted 21 November 2006; published 4 January 2007.

www.agu.org...

Don't ever be fooled by what the "mankind is at fault for Climate Change crowd" always want to claim about our world. Do your own research and you will find a different story to what they tell you.

Abrupt Climate Change is nothing new to Earth, and it is very interesting that the "mankind is at fault crowd" always want to dismiss the fact that other factors which do have a profound impact on Climate Change are happening now as they surely have happened in the past.

The "Rainmakers" and "Melatonins" will try to claim "the Earth is a closed system", when it is not.

A close system implies a system which is not affected by external factors, but the Earth's Climate is affected by external factors, such as any changes in the Sun, and any changes that happen in the Solar System as it travels around the center of the Milky Way, and as the Milky Way travels around and interacts with other galaxies in the Universe.

Space weather affects not only the solar system, but it affects Earth too. Any changes in the environment which the Solar system encounters in it's travels throuhout the Universe, will affect our Galaxy, our Solar System, and ultimately Earth.

Such changes affect the Sun's and Earth's magnetic field, as well as other planets in our solar system, and could very possibly be the reason for the increased magmatic/seismic activity increase we have been witnessing recently in our oceans which has been warming our oceans.

All the factors and exactly how they work are not understood completely, not even the "mankind is at fault crowd" can account for many of the changes we are seeing with their flawed theories, yet they can claim to their last breath that they know for certain it is mankind who has caused the current Climate Change, despite the fact that even the fluctuations of CO2 in the upper part of our oceans are 10-100 times more than all the anthropogenic CO2 (manmade CO2) emissions.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join