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.

 

Climate summary fuels worry

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Climate summary fuels worry


www.csmonitor.com

As a major part of the United Nations' effort to study climate change and to do something about it, thousands of scientists have produced thousands of pages documenting the details and causes of global warming.

In Valencia, Spain, this week, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is trying to boil that information down to a 25-page document – a synthesis to guide government policymakers around the world. As the Associated Press reported:

"Everyone will feel its effects, [said Yvo de Boer, director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] but global warming will hit the poorest countries hardest and will 'threaten the very survival' of some people, he said. 'Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less than criminally irresponsible' and a direct attack on the world's poorest people, de Boer said."

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 15-11-2007 by traderonwallst]




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Here is my question: How long do we have to wait until we receive an apology from the IPCC when nothing they predict takes place? 10 years? 20 years? 1 million years?

Seriously, we have gone through this countless number of times and each time they sound more and more scarier. They realize the people of the world are not falling for their scare tactics, so they have to wratchet it up each time. Next thing you know they will be talking about acid pouring out the skies above, while the seas begin to boil.

quote: "A real challenge has been to ensure that the assessments are objective and not influenced by government agendas".

Are you kidding me???? These people are their own agenda. When governments attempt to to put any constraints on the people everyone (atleast here on ATS) screams New World Order (NWO). Are you blind to this??? Here we have the largest attempt to control the populace to date and everyone seems to just take it. (in monotone voice) YES WE UNDERSTAND GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD, WE WILL DO WHAT YOU SAY.

Its cycles. CYCLES, CYCLES, CYCLES..... I am just tired of it. Sick and tired of it. OK, everytime I start a thread about global warming, people complain there are no links backing my opinions. I am not including links because logic dictates that this is nothing more than cycles. I have gone over this over and over and over again. I am sure everyone will continue to link charts and graphs and the IPCC web page to their responses, but ya know what? Those charts and graphs are made by scientists with an agenda. It has been proven that data that does not fit their models have been excluded. Also, its all about interpretation. Your view of the chart might not be what I see.

The earth heats up, the earth cools. The earth heats up, the earth cools. Get over it people.....We are a very insignificant event on this earth, WE are not causing global warming, it was here before we crawled out of the pre-mordial ooze and will be after we blow our selves up!



www.csmonitor.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 15-11-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Relax man.

No-one denies that there are climate cycles, but just saying that the current warming trend is a 'cycle' is not really science. CO2 is at a level that is likely greater than for at least 650,000 years, maybe a few million. And that isn't a cycle. Moreover, CO2 is a GHG, thus it will without doubt have some warming effect. This can be added to other important human impacts.

As for an apology. I think you might just have to wait until 2100. If we find out that doubling CO2 doesn't produce the range of 2-4'C warming that is predicted (all else being equal), then I will personally apologise to you.

I also don't think that anyone believes that the earth won't be here if we get 2-4'C of warming, just that some stability of climate is sort of good for human civilisation.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
This topic has already been posted
On this thread.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
in my view, global warming might be a blessing of sorts,


the availability of land and water for animal harvesting as a food source
may price the cow, sheep, goat, poultry, & the meat for protein operations
out of business.

the abundance of CO2 should allow the forests and plant fruits & foilage to flourish on land and areas where they were not found before...
like all those sparse praries and former tundras in the northern hemisphere... the timber line on mountains should go higher up the slopes,


GW is not as dire as the alarmists claim... we as humans can & will migrate to the new temperate climates with new rainfall brought on by the changing wind and current patterns. etc.
...clinging to the developments & hospitable mild climate of the last ~100 years...is a losing battle, and something akin to 'fundamentalist' thinking

viva GW & change



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
i want people to remember something,

C02 when emitted takes 27 years to cycle into the atmosphere and attain a state able to add to the green house affect.

so we are experiencing the affects of 1980 at the moment.

additionally there are many systems that are capable of adding to the warming of the planet.

such systems include carbon sinks and stores.

many of these sinks and stores are sensitive to climate,one example is peat bogs stored under permafrost,that when the permafrost is melted huge amounts of greenhouse gases are released.

another would be tropical rain forests,they hold a large amount of the atmospheres C02 in their ecosystem.the more they are destroyed the more c02 is released back into the atmosphere.
a 4c increase would wipe out the worlds rainforests.

a futher example would be the white ice sheets around the world,as they are white,they reflect heat back into space more so than other coloured terrain.when they melt that cooling affect is reduced and more heat is absorbed by the earth.

the most potentially dangerous is the frozen methane hydrates within the oceans,

methane hydrates are about 40x more effective at warming the planet than c02,and there are billions of tons of it stored in sea beds around the world.

and increase 0f 1.2C in the oceans temp would release large amounts of it via unfreezing.

there are many more such systems,they are called negative feedback systems.

if you hit one,the others become more likely.

were hitting a few.


[edit on 15-11-2007 by welivefortheson]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by welivefortheson]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Relax man.

No-one denies that there are climate cycles, but just saying that the current warming trend is a 'cycle' is not really science. CO2 is at a level that is likely greater than for at least 650,000 years, maybe a few million. And that isn't a cycle. Moreover, CO2 is a GHG, thus it will without doubt have some warming effect. This can be added to other important human impacts.

As for an apology. I think you might just have to wait until 2100. If we find out that doubling CO2 doesn't produce the range of 2-4'C warming that is predicted (all else being equal), then I will personally apologise to you.

I also don't think that anyone believes that the earth won't be here if we get 2-4'C of warming, just that some stability of climate is sort of good for human civilisation.


The IPCC does deny that global warming is part of a cycle. Do you have proof that the CO2 level is higher now that over the last 650,000 years? Was anyone around to do readings back then???? During active volcanic times the CO2 levels has exceeded current readings, by a large amoutn and that can be found by geological readings ( I m not supplying a link). I fully expect to receive the apology, but you might have to speak up...I should be about 130 years old.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by welivefortheson
 


Great post!
I especially liked the fact that you covered gas hydrates, something you don't hear either side of the argument mention very often.

Speaking of gas hydrates, I was wondering if seabed magma flats, hydrothermal plumes and other geological processes have an effect on the climate by releasing the gases trapped within the hydrates. I tried looking for information on this but no one seems to have covered it.


Originally posted by traderonwallst
Do you have proof that the CO2 level is higher now that over the last 650,000 years? Was anyone around to do readings back then?


Trader, I think the proof is in ice core samples. I may be wrong here, so don't take my word for it. I just wanted to point out that ice core samples negate your argument about there needing to be people back then to record the readings.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
i will do some research into historical c02 levels and place the evidence here.

ile add them as i find them.

cdiac.ornl.gov...

www.hydrogen.co.uk...

www.aip.org...
as you can see current levels are around 380- 390 parts per million.


www.daviesand.com...
notice how both the c02 levels have increased exponentially recently.and how the temperature variation has remained at a stable high previously unseen in the 400000 years.

news.mongabay.com...
Ta-da


www-das.uwyo.edu...
(the blue graph is read from right to left)

www.daviesand.com...

i think thats enough for now.lastly and most importantly i would like people to observe the phenomenon of global dimming

en.wikipedia.org...

global dimming has artificially lowered temperatures post 1950.

shielding us from the preliminary effects of an increased greenhouse affect.

p.s tradewind, on the realease of volcanic c02 you mention...

the earth was much more capable of absorbing c02 in those time periods.
forests and jungles covered the earth.life filled the seas and absorbed c02 etc.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by welivefortheson]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
The IPCC does deny that global warming is part of a cycle.


Well, yea and nay.

It suggests that current warming is significnantly influenced by human effects. It Doesn't deny that climate cycles exist.


Do you have proof that the CO2 level is higher now that over the last 650,000 years? Was anyone around to do readings back then????


As mentioned above, we use various proxies and other techniques.


During active volcanic times the CO2 levels has exceeded current readings, by a large amoutn and that can be found by geological readings ( I m not supplying a link).


And it is those same geological readings that provide another insight into historical CO2 levels (but ice cores are better). One relevant period when carbon-based GHGs spiked in a very short period in the atmosphere was the PETM event. Look it up


We appear to be releasing GHGs faster than during that period.

ABE:

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 15-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Trader, I think the proof is in ice core samples. I may be wrong here, so don't take my word for it. I just wanted to point out that ice core samples negate your argument about there needing to be people back then to record the readings.


Those same ice cores also show regular cooling and heating of the planet, again the cycle theory. They show long periods and shorter periods in between.

Some of those ice cores also show more tempreate readins in places like Antactica and indicate that there could have been beaches and palm trees there at one point. Now your going to argue Pangea and the one land form arguement and techtonic shifts. I know. We have doen this before, but always enjoy your posts. But I was responding to the post of 650,000 years ago. I don't think Pangea was around then....much longer back.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by welivefortheson
 


See....just what I said. run to the charts and graphs. Show the data and qualify that all the data was used. Show no data points were omitted as anomolies, as was done in the hockey stick theory when it stopped working toward the goal.

I can link graphs and charts too. I can find biased web pages that show everything you have is miscontrued. I am trying to argue the logic of global warming and why everyone thinks they are so damn important that what we have done over the last 100 years can destroy a planet 4.5 billion years old. Think about. We are not that significant and the earth has dealt with much greater things. Dinosaurs wiped out...massive extinctions, floods, famine. But here we are.

Let me ask all the Global Warming thinkers out there a question. As we can undoubtedly see, disaters have happend in the past, volcanoes, comets, asteroids, what ever. Massive life lost, whole speicies wiped out in short period of times.......But here we are. You all argue we must save the earth as its the only one we have. Aren't you all being a little hypocritical? Come on admit it...your trying to save humanity. The earth is not going to die....we would (your worst case scenario). So admit it, your not pro-earth....your pro-humans. come on.....admit it.




[edit on 15-11-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Nope, not gonna argue Pangaea or anything of the sort. I believe it's cycles, too. But I also believe we might have an influence on this current phase of the cycle. I don't believe it's purely cycles nor do I believe it's purely our fault. It might seem like sitting on the fence, but to me it's just being cautious. Climate is a tricky thing, and like the post by welivefortheson has indicated, there's more than one carbon source and sinks.

Here's another thing to consider with regards to what welivefortheson posted about global dimming -- aircraft contrails. They cause global dimming by day, but they also cause temperatures to rise by night. This kind of further highlights my point about climate being too chaotic to categorise in terms of black and white.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
these graphs are based upon the actual evidence from ice cores.

i have seen many over the years,in different media forms,research papers,magazine,t.v internet,radio

are you telling me every ice core analysis ever done is wrong?

you can laugh in your delusion all you want,but its not going to hide the fact that you dont have the scientific knowledge of our environment to make an accurate judgement.

its a science not a personal/political opinion.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Thats not sittin gon the fence in my book, its understanding that the whole thing is way to complicated. I agree.

Just wish everyone would stop ramming things down my throat, calling for carbon taxes (don't even get me started on that ponzi scheme) and telling me not to drive my fully restored 1986 oldsmobile with only 32,000 original miles on it.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst

I can link graphs and charts too.

Then do it.



I can find biased web pages that show everything you have is miscontrued.

What was bias about welivefortheson's links?



I am trying to argue the logic of global warming and why everyone thinks they are so damn important that what we have done over the last 100 years can destroy a planet 4.5 billion years old.

Why are humans so important, are you kidding me?
Just look at us...


Take a closer look.
newsdesk.si.edu...

You act as if we are nothing and can't have any impact on our home. Also a planet's age has nothing to do with it's destructibility. Are you saying we might be able to destroy Earth if it were only 6000 years old?



Think about. We are not that significant and the earth has dealt with much greater things. Dinosaurs wiped out...massive extinctions, floods, famine. But here we are.

That right Dinosaurs wiped out. Do you want Humanity wiped out? I don't. I like the people I've met here and I want my children to enjoy life as we have.



Let me ask all the Global Warming thinkers out there a question. As we can undoubtedly see, disaters have happend in the past, volcanoes, comets, asteroids, what ever. Massive life lost, whole speicies wiped out in short period of times.......But here we are.


Comets?
Earth was hit by a comet?
Anyway, the only mass species I can think of that have been wiped out in short periods of time is because of human activity.



You all argue we must save the earth as its the only one we have. Aren't you all being a little hypocritical? Come on admit it...your trying to save humanity.

Yeah, specifically my kids and their kids and so on. I'm Human YOU'RE HUMAN.



The earth is not going to die....we would (your worst case scenario). So admit it, your not pro-earth....your pro-humans. come on.....admit it.


Yeah!
For some reason you can't be both? I'm pro-Cat and pro-dragonfly and pro-making money too. Like you can only be "pro" one thing?? Which are you pro-Earth or pro-human?





[edit on 15-11-2007 by traderonwallst]


What's so funny?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by welivefortheson
these graphs are based upon the actual evidence from ice cores.

i have seen many over the years,in different media forms,research papers,magazine,t.v internet,radio

are you telling me every ice core analysis ever done is wrong?

you can laugh in your delusion all you want,but its not going to hide the fact that you dont have the scientific knowledge of our environment to make an accurate judgement.

its a science not a personal/political opinion.


First of smart ass......its a THEORY, not a science. Get your wording right.
I never said anything about the ice cores being incorrect. What I said is.....are all data accounted for? Did they refuse to use some data and classify it as an anomoly? The IPCC has had to re-ro their findings countless times over this issue. The whole hockey stick theory eliminated entire decades to produce the desired results. ALGORE based his movie on the hockey stick theory and still got a damn noble peace prize. Now, tell me people don't have an agenda. I do laugh all the time when I think about this THEORY, and all the people and the billions of $ wrapped up in it.
have you done your own research or are you basing all your statements on what other people say? Seems to me by saying I have no scientific knowledge of hour the environment works, your saying you do?

Keep it coming, I am enjoying a good laugh over lunch.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Oh man, carbon taxes.. :shk:

When I first read about it I thought it might actually help the planet until I read the details and realise that it hardly benefits the planet. So corporations can buy 'carbon credits' to 'offset' their pollution output? How's that a solution?



Anyway, the point I want to stress the most in my previous post is we do have an influence on the current phase of the cycle though I wouldn't put it purely on CO2. There are other green-house gases that should also be factored into the equation. On top of that, natural sources must also be factored in. We shouldn't be picking one extreme and discounting the other.

The way I see it right now there are two camps on the same spectrum, both extreme -- we are the sole cause of global warming and we are not affecting the planet at all. This is the wrong stance in my opinion. So I'm advocating a new stance, a new camp. The camp that wants to unite both extremes. We can call it the "Global Warming Grand Unification Theory" camp



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 

you must differentiate between the actions of the authorities,eg green taxes,and the actual problem of green house climate change.

you may not like what they are purposing(as i dont, as i believe green taxes will only have an effect upon the poor,the wealthier who are the biggest emitters will just pay the taxes and keep emitting),but dont let that emotion cloud the possibility of our climates degradation.

i have studied environmental science on two levels of education,for a total of 3 years.on both occasions i did a study into GW.

first time round,i wasnt a believer,second time round i was.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by welivefortheson]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
This is why I refuse to links, charts or graphs. (excuse the link)

He notes that page 4 of "Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work" includes the following: "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

This means that the scientific data may be altered to conform with what has already been published. (huh? and you call that science???)

Instead of highlighting the lack of scientific data to support the man-made global warming assertions, our media are trying to discredit critics of the report by trying to tie them to oil companies. Such stories never mention the billions of federal dollars being showered on advocates of the man-made global warming theory.

www.aim.org...



Since 1750, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuels, has risen to about 380 parts per million from 286 parts per million. (sounds like alot, but thats still only 33%. Anyone know what the readins were 650,000 years ago? We could be below thosse readings, we could be above)

It doesn't appear carbon dioxide levels have been that high in the past 650,000 years. (Still no one has explained to me exactly how this can be proved)

Carbon dioxide is continuing to build in the atmosphere by about 1.5 parts per million a year, and as a so-called greenhouse gas, it traps the sun's heat. (1.5 parts per million, how do we know where the correct level is supposed to be? Who is to say that we are currently not coming out of a period where the earth was too cold?)

The Earth's average temperature has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880 and is now warmer than it has been in the past 400 years. (Next year it could be 1 degree cooler, should we demand everyone start emitting gasses again?)

Average global temperatures are likely to rise - this is where the debate begins - somewhere between 2 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. (likely...what a perfect word to use, when you use a theory and not science. Easy to correct and no one can say you were wrong. Hmmm between 2 and 10 degrees, does not sound like alot but its a different of 500%, wish I could submit work with variances like that.)

The heat will cause global ocean levels to rise 3 to 39 inches this century. (between 3 and 39 inches....well what is it??? Difference again is 1300%.

www.denverpost.com...



Do you see my point........web pages are designed by people with their own opinions in mind. They draw from data that they agree with. You can make anythings sound the way you want it to. I could continue to add links and stuff, but I really don't want to waste server space. Just admit it..........its still all just a theory. We can all say it together. T-H-E-O-R-Y!!!!!


[edit on 15-11-2007 by traderonwallst]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join