It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:05 PM
Well, I hate to post and run, but leaving for a business trip. OH, I am taking a plane. Bad me.

Well everyone enjoy.

I will be bcak in a few days and see where this went.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I have read the Douglass et al paper and it's conclusion is that we must use caution when using models to predict future climate change. I think that's nothing new and something we all probably agree with.

Without doubt. We make tentative preditions, but we should consistently be aiming to improve and update methods.

Good show, Melatonin; this round is yours.

As I said earlier, big kudos for actually reading it. It's amazing the difference between the science and its media reporting sometimes.

I'm sure your post will be ignored like most of the more science-based posts in this thread, scary really...

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by mrmanuva
I thought the whole Venus global warming discovery would finally make most people realise that CO2 is quite clearly a cause of global warming. Venus has average surface temperatures 3 times higher than would be expected, considering its distance from the sun. However its atmosphere is 96% Carbon dioxide, so the greenhouse effect is extreme to say the least. CO2 is not the only cause of global warming on earth, or indeed the most prominent cause, but it is one of the causes we can actually do something about, so I can't see why people have a problem with dealing with it. If it prevents catastrophe for a few extra years then surely it is worth it? Ask a terminal cancer patient if they would want an extremely expensive drug that would extent their life for a year and you will be surprised what lengths they would go to, just to get that extra year.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by mrmanuva]

WHAT? This ia a fallacy to compare Venus (that is sooo much closer to the sun than we are) to Earth. They only picked it for two reasons:

* It has lots of CO2 in the atmosphere
* Its surface is really hot (molten rock)

Other than that, they have not actually proven anything about the effects of CO2. They make you make the connection CO2 = molten rock and high temps, which if you knew anything about psychology, makes you believe the idea more as you generated the connection from viable facts. It is the oldest trick in the book.

If you put your hand on a hot plate, it's going to get burned. But it is fine 1 ft away.

Some stats on Venus coming up..............

Regarding computing power for global warming models: it is a very well known fact that we can't even model something like the movement of air masses to predict the weather accurately, so how on Earth (no pun intended) we can have alleged proof models of global warming (something vastly more complex) is a lie in itself.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:24 PM
My Personal Opinion

If people want to believe the Global Warming Insisters then I could care less.
Anyone remember what your momma said when you asked her to do something because everyone else is doing it?

"If everyone else jumped off a cliff would you do it too?" Everyones mom

Well it seems this type of mentality is prevalent in the Global Warming Insister crowd.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by Unit541

If this were the case, then every moon, and planet in the solar system would be warming, not just two or three. With the number of bodies that resides in our solar system, there is a pretty good chance that one of them is experiences a fluctuation too.

We would have observed temperature increases on our own moon.
And I can't even begin to imagine what would happen if our own moon started heating up. We would all suffer spontaneous combustion probably.

Hey........that solves that mystery!!!!!

considering we haven't been viewing many of these planets for very long, who knows if this is a normal cycle or not.
And considering none of these planets are remotely like Earth, you can't even begin to compare them. Other then being round and in the same solar system, there is nothing similar between Earth and Jupiter.
It would take all day to list the different variables that could be affecting each and every one of these planets differently. And are we not discovering new bodies all the time? Or discussing how to even define them? Or knowledge of space is so limited it is like trying to decifer the Egyptian glyphs in the pyramids with a children's storybook.

Boy, it is easy to say that the technology used to measure our own climate and carbon output does not prove global warming on our own planet, but we can definetly depend on the technology to measure other planets.......that we have never stepped foot on.

When someone can stands on one of these planets, take ice samples, temperatures from pole to equator, and do this for a couple of centuries, then it may be believable.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by nixie_nox]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:35 PM
When I was a child, it was nuclear war, then another threat then another threat. We live in a world that feeds on crisis (sorry where media feeds on crisis):

>> Are we really pushing this duellistic life (hell on earth, heaven elsewhere) - Is global warming a conspiracy for us to belief that we are being paid for all pur sins?

>> Are we so arrogant as humans that we believe we control everything including the weather?

I never bought this whole global warming, it didn't make sense. When we talk about warming temparatues, - yes water vapour keeps temperatures near the sea warmer in winter and coller in summer - that is a REAL greenhouse gas and documented in every shcool geography book. I can't remember ever reading about CO2 doing something similar as a child.

Another thought - if temperature change is more common than we think (and we have only been measuring earth surface temperatures accurately for 150 years) - maybe the temperature does vary more than we think.
150 is a very small sample to try to draw any conclusions.

I oftn wonder whether if temp, variation is wider than we assume, the vikings may have called Greenland its name because at the time - it may have been green.

Plenty of food for thought

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

[edit on 11-12-2007 by nixie_nox]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by templar knight
I never bought this whole global warming, it didn't make sense. When we talk about warming temparatues, - yes water vapour keeps temperatures near the sea warmer in winter and coller in summer - that is a REAL greenhouse gas and documented in every shcool geography book. I can't remember ever reading about CO2 doing something similar as a child.

Heh, so CO2 isn't a real GHG. All GHGs are a sort of 'bendy' molecule.

In fact, CO2 is a stronger GHG than H2O. H2O is just more abundant. CH4 is stonger than both, but is less abundant than both.

H20 can account for about 60%ish of the greenhouse effect at levels of about 1% of the atmosphere, CO2 for 9-26% at .038%, and methane much less than either.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by melatonin

Then I wasn't an environmental science major? All these student loans for nothing....

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:11 PM

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Then I wasn't an environmental science major? All these student loans for nothing....

I don't know

ABE: Haha, my bad. I must learn to click the linky.

Yeah, it's amazing that people who don't really understand science believe they can define what it is.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:31 PM
Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."

sounds like someone was paid very well to make these claims, as ineffective and pointless as they are.

also 3 u.s scientists... hmmmmmmmmmmm very interesting seeing as though they are a world leader in co2 emissions!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:48 PM

Never said they were indiciative of falsehods, but that they are indicitive of thoeory and not science. They show that there are no answers. Just what I have been saying. We are using assumption to come to conclusions. If this could happen then the impact would be, so then lets spend $10 trillion over the next 10 years and tax people based on their carbon foot print. Please I pay enough in taxes.

No, the words are just vernacular! Another common phrase (I'm looking at it right now in regards to a paper on genetic sequencing) is "It would seem that" or "it follows" or " leads one to the conclusion..."

Look, I read a lot of science papers, more importantly I know how to read them. I don't need to rely on a reporter that has no idea what he/she's talking about to distill the data points for me.

And to say the mountain of information and the subsequent conclusions on the cause of global warming are "just theories" that's what science is!!!!!

The theory of relativity is a great example of "just a theory".

Show me one, ONE, peer-reviewed paper published from a science based journal on a study that links the heating of the Earth to the sun. That's my challenge.

If you people don't accept the scientific efforts of the vast majority of climatologists and astrophysicists as proof that we're the main cause of the planet's warming, than what are the basis of your claims? One Russian scientist no one's heard of that hasn't published anything?

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:01 PM
Also, I would like to add another point. We like to call the heating and cooling of the planet a natural, "cyclical" occurrence, but it doesn't just happen. There are generally large scale events that cause these periods of drastic climate change, such as asteroid hits and volcanic eruptions.

The warming today is rapid. Yet we haven't been hit by any asteroids and the kind of volcanic activity needed to affect climate change hasn't been seen in quite a long time. So....

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:15 PM
My Personal Opinion

LOL you don't need to have volcano eruptions of asteroids hitting us to cause warming and/or cooling periods although they speed things up a bit.

Nah this is just a natural cycle as discussed many times before by countless other people.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by Miishgoos

I wonder, did ANYONE bother to read about the White House covering up our affect on the climate change?

Or are people here still arguing with disinfo/discredited information?

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by traderonwallst

Yeah Al Gore is God Yeah, thats great, what a sharp, cutting response. Jesus come down off your pedestal mate just a second.
I've included a few links here the discusses that particuler issue at length, and it is a very real threat mate for you and me and the people who care and the people who don't. Disagree all you want with me, I'm afraid this isn't about point scoring or who has the biggest **** is it ? Nor is it about winning or losing an argument, this is about the future. The sea level rises commonly suggested recently are entirely based on the non distruction of the Greenland Ice Field. That goes, then, EVERYTHING changes. That is already going, quicker than ANYONE thought possible, even Al.

The first link is from Nirex
Nirex is an independent body responsible for supporting Government policy to develop and advise on safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable options for the long-term management of radioactive materials in the UK. They have lots of information, however they CANNOT predict the safety of Nuclear facilities if the Greenland sheet goes. Read their papers this is what they say.
Other links include british government files documenting current deterioration of present plants. And interestingly a site in support of nuclear power suggesting that when Britains many nuclear plants are submerged that there is now an urgent need to build new ones, there's logic for you. It doesn't discuss the consquences on human life l-Note-2005.pdf

I live in Ireland we don't have nuclear power, but we suffer the effects of Britains and have done so for many years.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:45 PM
Global warming is BIG BUSINESS. Having said that, should we always try to evolve our inventions to make them run cleaner, better, faster.....? Sure. There is nothing wrong with doing that. The status quo is never a good solution.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:01 PM
Scary stuff. I been thinking a lot about all this since news broke that other planets are going through global changes as well. That would definitely mean to point all arrows towards the sun. Some things that comes to my mind...

Maybe the sun is going through changes emitting some unknown more powerful rays then what we already know and it's penetrating our atmosphere.

Maybe all the planets orbits are decaying around the sun and we are being pulled closer towards it.

The sun is getting bigger/brighter.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:35 PM
The truth is the entire solar system is heating up. Earth being a member of the solar system is heating up right along with it and causing ice to melt.

The other truth is that this is really happening; and the only reason the UN (and Algore) want to convince everyone that it is our human technological carbon emissions that are causing it is so that they can setup a global tax on carbon emissions. The reason they want that is so that the NWO can more easily garner funds to setup the last phase of the implementation of the One World Government. The NWO crowd (and their supporters) are capitalizing on a natural phenomenon to further a dubious agenda to control us all.

That's it. That's the facts Jack.


posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:48 PM

Originally posted by euclid
The truth is the entire solar system is heating up. Earth being a member of the solar system is heating up right along with it and causing ice to melt.

Prove it.

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in