Global Cooling!, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 8-12-2007 @ 09:18 PM by melatonin
Originally posted by Indy
Why is it that the temperatures fall in advance of CO2 declines in almost all cases? Given that this happens pretty much all the time indicates a disconnect from the idea that CO2 is causing the warming.


Well, ice-age cycles are what they say they are - cycles. So it's no great surprise that it repeats.

Orbital variations initiate deglaciation, and they also intiate glaciation. For a deglaciation it brings on warming, for glaciation it brings on cooling. CO2 solubility is related to temperature, so as temps fall, more CO2 is taken up, as they rise, more is released. That is of little consequence for the ability of CO2 to cause warming.

If 10% less solar radiation hit the earth tomorrow and remained at that level for a 1000 years, I would certainly expect cooling, no matter what CO2 did.

The remainder of the post was just an argument from small numbers, means nothing. Methane is even less abundant in the atmosphere (ppb), it also converts fairly rapidly to CO2, which hangs around much longer.

The CO2 level changes are in direct response to temperature changes as the environment stores, releases and processes the gas.


As above, normally this is the case. It isn't at the moment though...

I think its pretty obvious CO2 is not the cause of warming or cooling


Only obvious if you ignore the science.

It can certainly cause both. In the stratosphere, it can cause cooling, and in the troposphere, warming.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by melatonin]


reply posted on 8-12-2007 @ 10:31 PM by BlueTriangle
Originally posted by whatsup
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)!


See, this is exactly what I mean...are you really so sure that the "few dissenting scientist"s are in a "HUGE minority"?? Did you get that information from the media??

Check out this page. www.oism.org...

That's a link to over 19,000 physical scientists that have signed a petition stating that the idea of manmade global warming is bunk. Note that this isn't just some site where you can click a link and add your name. Those who sign must be qualified, ie. have a BS, MS, or PHD in physical science. They must also request information and sign/return a reply card to have their names added.

While you're at it, check out this link as well...
Climate Momentum Shifting

If you want to "believe", more power to you. I'm not going to call you a "flat earther" simply because you have a different viewpoint. However, I'll be more than happy to point you to evidence that you're likely basing your opinion on biased reporting.


reply posted on 9-12-2007 @ 01:20 PM by whatsup
Complaint to Ofcom: Seven major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

Also..

Should The Great Global Warming Swindle be censured?

Personally, I am going to go with the IPCC scientists on this one and not "buy into" all this misrepresented and inaccurate "global conspiracy" stuff. Man's foot print on this planet is so massive and "bleeding obvious" that it would take a fool not to see it. It's no different that when doctors first started saying that smoking caused cancer. I remember my aunt dying of lung cancer with a cigarette in her mouth, and all the while saying "show me the proof that smoking causes cancer."

[edit on 9-12-2007 by whatsup]


reply posted on 9-12-2007 @ 04:00 PM by Beachcoma
Originally posted by I See You
One volcano blast has more punch that all of the output of human interferance.


But the volcano blasts also have an additional product that 'balances' things out -- iron dust. It fertilizes the oceans and promotes algae growth. This in turn scrubs out the CO2.

Source: Volcanic iron, CO2, ocean productivity and climate

Edit: fixed link and also to add --

Here's some more about volcanoes and CO2 --

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago.
Source: Current volcanic activity and climate?

[edit on 9-12-2007 by Beachcoma]


reply posted on 9-12-2007 @ 04:06 PM by BlueTriangle
Originally posted by whatsup
Complaint to Ofcom: Seven major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

Also..

Should The Great Global Warming Swindle be censured?

Personally, I am going to go with the IPCC scientists on this one and not "buy into" all this misrepresented and inaccurate "global conspiracy" stuff. Man's foot print on this planet is so massive and "bleeding obvious" that it would take a fool not to see it. It's no different that when doctors first started saying that smoking caused cancer. I remember my aunt dying of lung cancer with a cigarette in her mouth, and all the while saying "show me the proof that smoking causes cancer."

[edit on 9-12-2007 by whatsup]


Did you actually take the time to read your links? I'm kind of surprised you'd post the second one since it's contrary to your viewpoint.

Thanks for again indicating that "it would take a fool" to have an opposing viewpoint to yours. It's sad, but if you feel you have to demean others to get your point across, more power to you.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by BlueTriangle]


reply posted on 10-12-2007 @ 08:15 AM by traderonwallst
reply to post by MiRRoR_MuSiC


OK...first off, I don;t need to ask myparent about the 70's....Imight have been a kid, but I was a smart kid and know all about the Cooling and pending mini-iceage everyone feared.

Secondly, water displacement is one thing, but to defend the global warming kooks out there, I don't theink you understand what they are afraid of when it comes to rising water levels. Its not the icebergs that they are attributing to "so called" rising water levels...then you woul dbe right...water displacement would called for and no rise in sea level should be felt. It is the ice on land, glaciers and such that they claim are melting and running off into the seas.

But what I would like to know is....are they taking measurments everywhere in the world? Due to plate shifts and basic crust movements (take place all the time), do they take into affect such changes in these measurements? How do we know that the measurement they took off the coast of California last year that showed a .001" rise in sea level, was not due to a recent earth quake and a shift in the seacoast (a sinking affect)? Do we know for sure they take these into account? Who calibrates their machines? Do they measure in the same spot every single time? I know the satelites are pretty good at stuff like that, but were the tides factored in? Did they measure at high tide and then low tide and see a change in measurements....therefore it must be global warming????

I don;t care what anyone says, and no one will change my mind. its just a theory. There is not science in it at all. Temperatures change all the time and there is cyclic forces at work in the change. I'll tell ya what. Lets go 200 years in to the future. If things change over time between now and then, I will eat crow and apologize to all you global warming fanatics out there.



reply posted on 10-12-2007 @ 08:17 AM by traderonwallst
reply to post by Animal



You might be right about upstate NY, but not down here in NY City. We are not in a snow belt.


reply posted on 10-12-2007 @ 08:32 AM by traderonwallst
reply to post by melatonin


Sorry melatonin,

But when it comes to volcanos...those really big ones are down right nasty and can easily spew more C02 into the air then our out put. Some of the bigger ones in the past have even put the earth into a period similar to a nuclear winter and have cause mini-ice ages that led to famine and deaths around the world. Some even attrribute the great potato famine of Ireland to a volcano explosion half a world a way (occured almost 2 years prior to the start of the famine).


reply posted on 10-12-2007 @ 08:53 AM by traderonwallst
reply to post by whatsup



You do know the IPPC report is regularly "updated" and corrected? They have a policy of only making changes that agree with the end result. This is one of thereasons that a lot of people give no credence to such a report. I sure don't. There is even a clause in appedix "A" indication such a policy. I am not going to go find it, but have linked to it in the past.

BY THE WAY....we all do know that the green house effect is one of the most important naturally occuring things that happens on this earth right???? Without the greenhouse effect all the heat radiated by the earth would disappear and we would freeze to death.

Did you know that Mercury, the closes planet to the sun has extreme cold temperatures at night? -300 degrees farenhite. Why? no atmosphere. All the heat from the day escapes. Can you imaging living like that? Warm up to a toasty 80 degrees F, and cool down to say -80 degrees F at night? What planst could you possibly grow for food? This is what I mean by Earth being such a perfect world. Everything is just right. The earth works in mysterious ways to stay in balance. One of those ways is cooling itself off and warming itself up.. Who are we to challenge what the earth does? Who are we to take credit for anything that earth is so obviously responsible for. Are we really that significant?

I posted this question in in another thread and got very little responses, but I will ask you all here.

"What if.........the earth uses cyclical warming and cooling as a way to maintain some kind of equalibrium? What if it is a defense mechanism that it uses to protect some life on earth, while others perish? We all seem to believe that GLOBAL WARMING is man made (well, not all of us), but what if it is really the earth defending itself from over population or deforrestation or strip mining? What if its an event necessary for life to continue here on earth?

Should we really stand in its way and try to change the climate?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Lake Vostok Antarctica: breakthrough imminent.
  Posted 11 days ago with 176 member flags
Sky Sounds 1/25/2012 Atlanta, GA Personal Video/Audio
  Posted 18 days ago with 146 member flags
Strange sounds warn us of incoming, and very soon...
  Posted 7 days ago with 135 member flags
Volcano in Iceland Erupting Alongside The Aurora Borealis (pics)
  Posted 7 days ago with 121 member flags
6 of the oldest trees from around the world.
  Posted 11 days ago with 108 member flags
West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture
  Posted 9 days ago with 87 member flags
CONFIRMED: Global Warming \'Ended 15 Years Ago\'
  Posted 14 days ago with 75 member flags
Pictures from the Aurora lightshow
  Posted 19 days ago with 73 member flags