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.

 

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face


www.jpl.nasa.gov

PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
SCI/TECH: Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer within 100 years

[edit on 14/11/07 by plumranch]




posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
This suggests that changes seen in the 1990s in circulation were mostly decadal in nature and not trends caused by global warming.

www.jpl.nasa.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I've always been a bit skeptical about global warming... Is it man made? Is it nature? Is it a little bit of both? In my opinion, global warming is a naturaul process but man kind is doing their fair share of destroying the planet.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Roland Deschain
 


I have my doubts as to whether or not man is capable of "destroying the planet".

We may be able to make it uninhabitable for us and other species. Though, I seriously doubt we are capable of any long term (in terms of Universal time) damage to mommy Earth.


If we ever push her too far, she will take care of us on her own.


Jasn



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I think it would be silly to assume that we weren't destroying the planet slowly. I agree, we may not be capable of causing any long term damage but that doesn't mean we can't cause enough damage to make it unsafe for us to live on.

And yes, you're right, if we ever push her to hard, she will take care of us herself as she has in the past.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Roland Deschain]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   


I've always been a bit skeptical about global warming... Is it man made?
reply to post by Roland Deschain
 
Hi Rolend,
This research supports the theory that global changes are not anthropogenic (man caused) but a planet/ solar system relationship. Perhaps we will see more supportive data as it comes in.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   


Though, I seriously doubt we are capable of any long term (in terms of Universal time) damage to mommy Earth.
reply to post by SimiusDei
 

Absolutely agree with you, Simius! This planet has proven to be resilient to most all that man and nature has challenged.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   
hmmm I guess you guys are right....we could nuke the planet till the cows come home but eventually it would restore. We would need more destructive energy that anyone could fathom to completely destroy this planet



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
 
Hi Rolend,
This research supports the theory that global changes are not anthropogenic (man caused) but a planet/ solar system relationship. Perhaps we will see more supportive data as it comes in.


Nope, it doesn't.

It does what it says on the tin - changes seen in arctic upper ocean circulation in the 1990s were predominately part of a decadal variation.

Nothing more, nothing less. Says nothing about global changes not being linked to anthropogenic effects.

Moroever:


Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...


apc

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Thanks for enforcing the standard "So what that doesn't mean I'm wrong" response. Typical to ignore every statement that points out the flaws in the argument and want to make babies with every one that voices caution.

The implication is indeed made that these changes may not be linked to global warming:


"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.


I swear Global Warming nuts are identical to the Moon Hoax nuts. It doesn't matter how much contradictory evidence is presented. They're right, everyone else is wrong, and if you don't like it they'll have you arrested.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
whatever ocean currents are doing....
i'm wondering why is NASA the big voice??
Whatever happened to the NOAA, the national oceanic & atmospheric assn.

i though tat well funded and established network of government
and university scientists, academics, climatologists and such were
the 'sage' voice of such discoveries and ongoing watchfulness...

i thought NASA was so under funded and concerned with ISS & shuttle
replacements & the Hubble debacle, they couldn't handle global climate change observation & research

guess i'm in error



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
The implication is indeed made that these changes may not be linked to global warming:


"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.



And?

That's all it says. Changes in the arctic ocean are likely a decadal variation. That's it. Nothing more.

If you think you can morph that into global warming is not influenced by human activity, then I feel you might be going beyond the data somewhat.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by melatonin]


apc

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Are you ignoring the last half of the quoted statement?

I'm not talking about other evidence for climate change, nor do I deny the fact that the climate is changing. The only thing being implicated here is that this specific observation can not be associated to Global Warming as it has been in the past, dismantling yet another aspect of the man-made Global Warming lie.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Are you ignoring the last half of the quoted statement?


Not at all. By saying the study shows that changes in arctic circulation appears to be a decadal variation, I thought it went without saying.


I'm not talking about other evidence for climate change, nor do I deny the fact that the climate is changing. The only thing being implicated here is that this specific observation can not be associated to Global Warming as it has been in the past


OK, again, that is all the study says, but I would say they state 'directly' associated with global warming.


dismantling yet another aspect of the man-made Global Warming lie.


Eh? Even if the changes in arctic circulation were linked to global warming, it wouldn't indicate whether global warming was influenced by human effects or not.

Your ideological slip is showing here


You accept that climate change is occuring, but you think that a study that only shows that recent changes in arctic circulation are not linked to global warming (i.e. climate change) dismantles another 'man-made global warming lie'.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by melatonin]


apc

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The dismissal of a previously argued correlation is the mechanism of dismantlement.

Plot a line on a graph. This line represents the amount of bad juju Man is pumping into planet. The line starts near the bottom (where the smaller numbers are) and ends near the top (where the bigger numbers are).

Now plot another line on the graph. This line represents observed changes in ocean currents. Before, this line started near the bottom, and ended near the top.

Since it appeared the two lines followed eachother, it was argued that this was cause-and-effect.

But now, the line for the ocean currents is going back down (to the smaller numbers), but if the line for the man-made juju is going anywhere, it's still going up.

This means that there in fact was no cause-and-effect relationship to begin with.

It's not hard.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Like the article and linked it to my thread over here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
You have an interesting insight into the workings of science, heh.

A possible relatonship between arctic circulation and climate change would never have supported human influence on climate.

That's just in your mind, or more correctly, falsely framing the issue as such provides you the opportunity to whack a strawman.


apc

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
But you can't sing...

Although you're absolutely right. The alleged relationship never had substance, which this study shows.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Although you're absolutely right. The alleged relationship never had substance, which this study shows.


The alleged relationship between global warming and the recent arctic ocean circulation?

Aye.

Still says nothing about human influences on climate change.


apc

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
No, not directly.

Like I said, all this does is show how one piece of evidence previously used in support of the argument was false. These changes never had anything to do with Man.

We'll see more of this as legitimate science chips away at the politically manipulated version. For another year, at least.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join