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.

 

Global Cooling!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Never mind, scientist... I see you're relying on thios reputable website for the image.

junkscience.com...

I found it by looking at the properties of your image.

I suppose it outranks NASA in your view?




posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by scientist
 


Got a link for that, scientist?



www.junkscience.com...



Odd, the last great glaciation is supposed to have seen atmospheric CO2 levels descend to around 200 ppmv accompanied by a temperature change of around 5 °C, and recovered more or less concurrent with not a doubling (estimated above at ~3 °C) but less than 40% increase in atmospheric abundance of CO2 -- by their rough calculation there should only be ~2 °C difference between ice ages and interglacials. And if these reconstructions (the graph posted above) are anywhere close then there is very little relation between the two variables.

If there's such a direct correlation, why do empirical measures demonstrate equivalent warming pre- and post-Industrial Revolution? The linked record is from UNEP/GRID-Arendal, hardly a 'fossil fuel front group' surely, so why don't such records give pause to greenhouse hysterics? The split pre- and post-1850 is about 5 ppmv and 85 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 and yet apparent warming associated with the date of ice break up is similar (1:1 pre- and post-1850) when the above rule-of-thumb says it should have been almost a 1:4 split with most warming (earlier break up) post-1850. And this is a far-northern Arctic location, where enhanced greenhouse should be among the most prevalent.


further:

www.physorg.com...



New calculations show that sensitivity of Earth's climate to changes in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) has been consistent for the last 420 million years, according to an article in Nature by geologists at Yale and Wesleyan Universities.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Cooling?

I don't know about the rest of you, but it is Dec. 7th and I have been running around outside (central Ky) with my shorts and t-shirt on. It is not cold here at all.

For that matter, I think we have only had 3 or 4 days that have been cold enough for coats.

I vividly remember being a kid and needing a heavy coat by this time of the year. I can remember the ice storms we would get and how we could go out and "skate" down the street till we were too cold to move anymore.

Nothing like that now. At least not here. If we get any kind of winter weather, I would be seriously surprised.

VV



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsup
1000's of the worlds top scientists are now in complete agreement that climate change is real AND IS MAINLY BEING CAUSED BY MAN (this time around).


Increasing numbers of top scientists are coming out on the other side of the issue as well. Do you find it odd that all of the scientists on the side of human caused global warming happen to be funded by the government to study it? It's a huge money train that stops when it's proven wrong.


Originally posted by whatsup
Folks that still will not believe what the scientists are saying are "flat earthers" and should also argue with their doctors, chemists, biologists, and all other scientists. Quite believing what Rush Limbaugh, Michael Crichton, Shawn Hannity, and fox news claims to know about this subject and START LISTENING TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO STUDY THIS DAILY are saying!


Great argument! If you don't agree with me, you're a "flat earther", ie. you're stupid. Your quickness to jump to name calling shows just how lacking your argument is. I suggest that you do a little research on the number of scientists that have recently come out against manmade global warming and look into the amount of $$ that's being funneled to the scientists studying it.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by scientist
 


Never mind, scientist... I see you're relying on thios reputable website for the image.

junkscience.com...

I found it by looking at the properties of your image.

I suppose it outranks NASA in your view?



right, because NASA is totally unbiased and never promoted government agendas, lol.


What forum do your moderate? I thought I was on ATS for a second.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I think the junkscience site might be a little biased

However, I do respect the Physorg website, which also has this link on the left hand sidebar;


Two of the most important Greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere reached a record high in 2006, and measurements show that one - carbon dioxide - is playing an increasingly important role in global warming, the U.N. weather agency said Friday.

www.physorg.com...



So... rather than going back into the hundreds of millions of years you point to as evidence, lets concentrate on the period of time when human beings, like ourselves, were here. That would be ~200,000 years. That would, of course, include a few ice ages.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I'm in South Florida and it has been unusually warm for this time of the year. We barely had any chilly days at all. This week, weather forecasters hyped up a cold front coming down.. it lasted a day and not even a day, because it was only at night that it was actually chilly.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
What forum do your moderate? I thought I was on ATS for a second.


Ah...here we go. Now it must get personal because I've dissed the junkscience website.

Well... I suppose you win then, because I refuse to debate on that level.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsup
It is easy to track the most recent changes to the industrialization era, and since that time we have increased CO2 by around 30%...and CO2 is a greehouse gas... and greenhouse gases reflect solar energy back to the earth... and duh!...what about this don't people get??
[edit on 7-12-2007 by whatsup]


I wanted to quote your entire post to highlight all the nonsense but this paragraph needs the most attention. If you compare the temperature trends with CO2 trends in the Vostok core samples you will see that CO2 changes lag BEHIND temperature changes. While the difference is blurry on the rise the difference is very pronounced on the decline. While CO2 CAN cause temperature changes the amount is so small that it is irrelevant. However CO2 levels can be influenced by temperature changes.

Under warmer and dry conditions vegetation can wild and often fall victim to wild fires. This of course eliminates the very things that converts CO2 to oxygen. So as a result of increasing temperatures CO2 levels will rise. It also makes sense when you look at the Vostok plots. It takes a matter of days to wipe out a large area of trees. This will result in an immediate impact on CO2 to O2 conversion. It will take many years for the area to regenerate. As temperatures moderate the area becomes more favorable for growth and vegetation and grow and thrive once again. But before this happens the temperatures fall. Then the ability to convert CO2 to O2 returns. That is why you see that gap on the downside. Vegetation can be destroyed rapidly but takes time to replenish.

It has been shown that increasing CO2 levels has a diminishing return on the greenhouse effect. So that would be an unlikely culprit in any significant warming. As I have explained and as the Vostok core samples indicate CO2 levels are simply along for the ride.

For your reference here is the Vostok plot.


Here is an overlay. I layered the temperature over the CO2. The coloring changes a bit. I'm no photoshop pro lol. The top half is the combined image. The yellowish color represents temperatures. The green represents CO2. The left side of the graph is the most recent in history. It shows clearly how temperatures fall in advance of CO2. Based on the Global Warming caused by man theory this would not be possible. It would be impossible for temperatures to fall in advance of CO2 delinces.



If you are bored you can read by writeup on it.

www.climatepatrol.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
You are pretty close to 100 % correct OP.

If you have not seen it, give "The Great Global Warming Swindle " a look.
I have posted download sites for it before, only to go back to that site and see that it has been removed... Censorship maybe?
You decide.
Here are some of the original links where it was easily downloaded in it's entirety (google video and the internet archive being two of the worst censors:

1- video.google.com...

2- www.youtube.com... sJJ-vfgJrLVopL-QL6iuDwpBGj8CGWQw0QY9BxuaNgKv1v-kUmsoh0Pwiv4rswa769ExS9q_oFKiJkZE2BYzr1VROiqcFSf3OWnfEFX98RQtOVsRLqUOSn31wfI=

3- www.archive.org...

From all accounts, it looks like there is a massive effort to suppress this excellent video, while at the same time, to promote al's propaganda. AGW is all about brand new taxes, gov grants and ipcc control. In short it is a wealth transfer scheme on a massive scale. Any individual or country which is productive must pay massive taxes or penalties for being so.

Check out this little bit of sleight of hand. The following site exposes the fallacies in the GW ""data". Temperature stations in the middle of cities, sidewalks, and hot asphalt ? Anything wrong here? Are temps being artificially inflated to show runaway GW? You decide if there is an agenda:
www.climateaudit.org...

Anyway, I can no longer find a site to download The Great Global Warming Swindle from. Suppression? I would say, sure. There is a lot of money, power, and control involved, under the guise of "Save the Planet".
Pretty obvious to anyone who digs deeper than what the MSM dishes out.
Contrary to popular belief, katie couric is NOT a climate scientist. Neither is operah.

My best advice is to track it down on a torrent or bit nova site. Or a p2p.

Oh, one last thought on this very concerted effort to sell AGW to the masses.
Notice how in the winter months it becomes "Climate Change". It's damn hard to sell Global Warming when people are freezing their asses off. It then becomes ""Climate Change".
Also, with that new and improved moniker, ANY normal weather event can now be attributed to AGW, and then taxed and penalized.....



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Ahhh. Could this be what it's all about.... ?

www.newsmax.com...


Former vice president and environmental activist Al Gore is joining forces with a venture capital company that’s seeking to profit from the move toward “clean technology” in the $6 trillion global energy business.

Gore is becoming a hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a major Silicon Valley venture capital firm where an old friend, John Doerr, is a partner.


Money, and power?. Nawwww..... It's all about 'saving the planet....

Isn't it?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Now it must get personal because I've dissed the junkscience website.


no, not at all. I was actually searching for any theories on GW that also related to the Gaia theory, and came across a review of another book by James Lovelock about the exact topic, but he was actually embracing the GW theory, which sort of caught me off guard. Anyways, further on that page was a rebuttal, which then linked to junkscience for that graph alone.

I have no personal stake in the site, in fact it's the first time I've come across it, or at least the first time I noted it. I'm just saying that taking NASA as divine law seems a bit myopic. Plus, you seem to be refuting the graph based on the site the image was posted on. I highly doubt junkscience.com put that graph together


I suppose you win then, because I refuse to debate on that level.


It's a bit unfair, and a manipulative tactic to make a condescending comment like this. I'll pass it off as some sort of offense you took by taking something personally. Nothing of the sort was intended.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
But, as both phenomons are fairly predictable,


While I agree with most of your post. El Nino's and La Nina's are not very predictable. They are very observable ie. you can tell when one is weakening or gaining strength and what that means weatherwise, however they are fairly random in their sequence and length. You can have two El Nino's in a row, one lasting 2 1/2 years the other for only a year without a La Nina between for example.

We are getting a better understanding of the phenomena's but still haven't figure them out save for us observing if they are getting stronger or weaker. They do seem to be one of the more worldwide effecting weather phenomenas that's for sure.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
While CO2 CAN cause temperature changes the amount is so small that it is irrelevant. However CO2 levels can be influenced by temperature changes.


I don't see how much of what you posted has anything to do with what the guy said. What he said was fine in that paragraph, you've just taken it to move into your normal areas of obfuscation. There was no nonsense there, CO2 has increased about 30%ish, CO2 is a GHG, GHGs cause warming.

We know there is a degree of lag during deglaciation, it doesn't matter. No-one would suggest that CO2 magically appears in the atmosphere, it would have some cause, and that is an initial rise in temps.

But lets highlight the nonsense in your post. Good to see you've moved on from the binary thinking here, but only to a position of 'the amount is so small'.

Where does this come from? Especially considering the best estimates we have are that GHGs accounted for about 30-40% of the warming during deglaciation (Hewitt & Mitchell, 1997). That's not small. If we take it as 5'C warming, GHGs account for about 1-2'C of this.


It has been shown that increasing CO2 levels has a diminishing return on the greenhouse effect. So that would be an unlikely culprit in any significant warming. As I have explained and as the Vostok core samples indicate CO2 levels are simply along for the ride.


It doesn't mean it's an unlikely culprit, it just means there will be some limit to the effect it can have. Thus, if 280-560ppm gives 2-4'C (2x), then 2x-4x would give a bit less than this (but not much at all at this level). We could take up 10,000 times the preindustrial level (280ppm) and still be increasing the greenhouse effect. Lots of room for increasing radiative absorption for CO2.

And now we move from 'so small' to 'along for the ride'. Not when it might be accounting for about 30-40% of the warming during deglaciation.


Based on the Global Warming caused by man theory this would not be possible. It would be impossible for temperatures to fall in advance of CO2 delinces.


Why not? If something like orbital variations provided less solar radiation then it would pretty easy, no?

You seem to falling into binary thinking again here.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Rainy everyday here in England.
Damnit we're all gonna die of this boiling unexpected weather in winter.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 





Do you find it odd that all of the scientists on the side of human caused global warming happen to be funded by the government to study it? It's a huge money train that stops when it's proven wrong.


Sorry but I feel that this is just ludicrous. Just look at the studies on global warming that were ordered by the Bush admin in the last couple of years (for appeasement purposes). When they were released, they were edited by the government and a great bulk of studies content were blacked out! Furthermore, many scientists at NASA and NOAA feared for their jobs if they did not support the administrations anti global warming views. I know one of them personally and he believes the problem is much worse than is currently being revealed.

And you would have us believe that big industry and fossil fuel companies (in collusion with the government) are behind the push to arrest global warming! Get real! It is just exactly the opposite of what you say - concerning the government and industry.

As for me, I am going to trust the peer reviewed science and not listen to the arm chair experts (and a few dissenting scientist which are in a HUGE minority)! The signs of climate change are painfully obvious to those who choose to see them. To those that don't, I am forced to believe that you choose not to for either political or religious convictions. As for me, I am an old line conservative and so have no bias in the argument. My only bias is that I want their to remain a healthy planet for the benefit of my children and grandchildren (but don't believe this is going to happen because not enough people really care).

[edit on 8-12-2007 by whatsup]

[edit on 8-12-2007 by whatsup]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


dont really have time to read all the stuff, but in response, i am a firm believer in the earth's temperature changing, for IT IS NEVER STATIC, it has always and will always be DYNAMIC, maybe its warming, maybe its cooling, our planet is actually due for an ice age, for the past millions of years we have had one approximately once every 15,000 years, but if it is warming the raining and snow would make sense, with warming temperatures it means more water is being evaporated, creating more clouds, clouds that will provide more cover and more rain, with more cloud cover, the earth cools because the clouds reflect more sunlight, maybe mother natures way of keeping some form of equilibrium, but ask your parents about the "global crisis" of the 70's, well renound scientists ALL OVER THE WORLD were soo worried about global cooling that they were planning on building a giang wall in the pacific to divert the cold water currents coming down from alaska, ask your parents or look it up, IMHO its just the environmentalists who function on scare tactics to get their funding or else they would actually have to get a real job, scary right? they have to have some monster, blow it up, and as for the SEVERELY rising coastline due to antarctictic melts, its not as profound as everyone would like them to be, its just simple science, do an experiment for yourself, take a clear tupperwear big dish fill it with water and ice, mark initally where the water level is then let the ice melt, due to displacement the water wont rise at all! i think we all learned this in like 6th grade science... and for someone to say that water levels are going to rise 20 feet all over the world... do you know how much water that would take?? its just not possible by the amount of frozen ice in the arctics, and i await the pelting, but its just my knowledge that tells me this may be a little more blown up than it should be



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


I am often left wondering why people such as yourself think others are going to listen to you simply because you have an opinion. While it is fun to get together with a group of people who share your opinion and talk all about it, trying to convince others of your opinion takes more than making rather baseless statements.

So what, it is snowing in New York, not really a big surprise at all to me. Having lived in Minnesota and Vermont for most of my life I would have expected it to be snowing up there in about....October....

Most people would agree with you that global warming is a cycle, I wont deny it, but I also will not accept that the current weather patterns we have seen are natural cycles alone. It is just bad science to say that humans cannot add to a natural cycle.

Global warming is in for no bigger challenge this year than last. It does not matter how much everyone tries to dump on this theory as garbage, it will win out in the end. I am willing to admit that the roll we play in this cycle could very well be proven to much much much smaller than science is saying right now, but the global warming issue is about much more than what is in its tittle. This is an issue that is raising in the publics awareness the undeniable impacts human systems have on natural systems. The issue go so far beyond carbon and methane, it is our awakening to the reality that as our population continues to swell and our interventions in the natural continue to increase in scale, we will need to define practices that balance huamn and natural systems.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MiRRoR_MuSiC

but if it is warming the raining and snow would make sense, with warming temperatures it means more water is being evaporated, creating more clouds, clouds that will provide more cover and more rain, with more cloud cover, the earth cools because the clouds reflect more sunlight, maybe mother natures way of keeping some form of equilibrium,


So why do most models of GW seem to indicate drought and other bad things in many areas but don't show the areas where rainfall or other attributes of GW will increase and help?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
The truth seems to nearly always lie in the middle of a debate. We all have various evidence, based on where we live, that affects our opinions.

I'm another person who lives quite far north. Here there have been no winters or summers outside of historical norms. In fact a significant record low happened in recent years. Most of the records listed by the NOAA happened in the 1960's or prior to the 1930's from a quick search.

Last year I got to looking at averages on the Weather Channels website and wondered what they were based on. I went to the NOAA and looked up what is available. It soon became clear there must be a lot of guess work going on. Go back over 70 years and there is no way on this earth they can claim enough data to make any suppositions about these topics. Ever wonder how they can even make a statement about temperatures prior to the mid 1900's? They have some highly localized data but entire areas of the earth are ignored or averaged in as far as I can see. They talk about past centuries as if they have data equal to today's. What a scientific travesty. I may not be qualified to make the calculations but it does not take a genius to know if they don't have accurate data their assumptions can't be anything more than politically expedient. Global Warming may well be occurring but proof? They don't have it. Their just trying to validate their jobs and incomes.

The outcome of my comparison of the averages presented by the Weather Channels site? I took all the available data from NOAA and did a simple average which any child could do. The Weather Channels listed averages were off around 3 degrees in my opinion. The error supported Global Warming and the real number from the NOAA data probably does not.

Public opinion clearly has to do with where a person lives. It does not account for the fact that if it is warmer than usual in one area it is always cooler than usual somewhere else. I have noticed that I can use the weather in NY to predict the weather here in Anchorage. If it is colder than normal in NY it is nearly always the opposite here. In fact it is more accurate than the TV Weather Report just from casual observation. For instance it has been warmer than usual here which relates to what you are saying.

Another issue is I have spoken often with Slope Workers (Oil Workers in the northernmost part of Alaska). They tell me that the Polar Bear population is exploding and it is getting so dangerous they have to take along an extra person with a rifle to protect them when they work in the field. The complete opposite of what the GW crowd reports. Who is lying. Well, it is clear to me the workers are telling the truth. So why are they lying about the bears? There are numerous articles about the problems they are having with the increasing number of Polar Bears in Canada as well. All of this can't be true unless some manipulating of evidence is happening in the scientific community. Can it? Somebody is clearly rigging the information.

Add the above to the knowledge that Mars and other planets are also warming and what do you get? What I get is the scientists are protecting their jobs by validating them through exaggerations and suppositions. They are throwing the scientific method out the door with the trash.

I currently believe that we are warming at a slow and less than dangerous rate. I believe we do have an impact but it is a tiny part of the real cause and that this would be happening if we did not exist. The blame game is simply a Political Tool improperly used to excite the public for less than honest reasons. We all want clean air and water but do we want to be scared needlessly and lied too at the same time? I don't and I'm less than impressed by these so called scientists who clearly are lying for money.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join