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 Warming is a real problem Proof!!!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Why do i keep hearing people saying that global warming is fake and its something the govornment just cooked up to keep us in line well the fact is im sorry to say thatt it is real and were feeling the effects even today

there is litterallybillions of evidence out there and you just have to .look for it im sorry but i cant get the diagrams up here so im going to have to send a link instead
www.ecn.ac.uk...
the proof is there and its all our fault and no one elses and if we dont want our children to suffer through global warming then we really have to act today.

Heres more links on global warming
www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...
www.yenra.com...
data.giss.nasa.gov...




posted on May, 20 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
You're *incorrect and I got proof. Mars is also warming, is that also our fault. How about when the planet warmed after each ice-age before there were people driving SUV's and burning coal.
 

* Note - Civility and Decorum are expected on ATS.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by dbates]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
what about when everything used to run on coal?
wich "pollutes" our atmosphere way more
plus co2 is ESSENTIAL for life
plants cant live without co2
if plants dont live
we dont live
our planet ALWAYS gets colder or hotter



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
what about when everything used to run on coal?
wich "pollutes" our atmosphere way more
plus co2 is ESSENTIAL for life
plants cant live without co2
if plants dont live
we dont live
our planet ALWAYS gets colder or hotter



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
A good District Attorney can indict and convict a ham sandwich of murder. I can also provide a million reasons why we should see cooling which will lead to an ice age in the future.

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I think what he is referring to is not man made global warming. But the earth is warming, therefore we have global warming.

It's not our fault, it's the Sun's, but we still play a factor in the types of pollution we send into the atmosphere, it still damages it.

You can't say that 6.7 billion people dont' make a difference in the life of the planet, if you think that, I suggest you visit a rain forest or a dessert, it might give you some perspective.

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8
 

The issue of global weather change is an extremely complex puzzle, one which cannot be "proven" or "dis-proven" without even knowing what it is that you are trying to prove or dis-prove.

The facts are that the weather changes constantly. Fluctuations from year to year are just that. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam on ATS. Rather than repeat those discussions, please go to those threads, if you are truly interested in understanding the complexity of the issue, and the inability of science to come to a definite conclusion.

Unless you are a scientist, and familiar with scientific methodology, I would leave the "proofs" to those who do such things for a living. Even they cannot agree, and for good reason, as I've said. Mankind has just crawled out of the cave, so to speak, and is trying to fathom an issue with more variables than are even known at this point.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
www.ecn.ac.uk... - An oversimplified shock site which has graphs only through the early 1990s. Since then, global temperatures have been pretty steady on average (1998 was the hottest year on record globally). Out of date and sensationalized.

www.global-greenhouse-warming.com... - Look at the graphs about 1/4 of the way down... temperature rise precedes CO2 concentrations. Effect does not precede cause (except in sci-fi novels).

www.yenra.com... - not too bad. I especially like this excerpt:

Snyder said this report is only the first step in an ongoing effort to understand the implications of climate change for California. The results represent an "average" year, based on 15 years worth of data generated by the model for each carbon dioxide concentration. Additional studies will try to capture the natural variability of the climate and how that variability may change in the future, he said.


In simple terms: we need more study to e sure what (if anything) is happening.

data.giss.nasa.gov... - Check out the three surface temperature anomaly graphs (first set of graphs)... now compare that with a graph of volcanic/tectonic activity at the same time spans. You'll be amazed how they line up.

I'm gonna write a web site stating that the sky is going to fall due to too many mosquitoes in it... just to see how many people believe it.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower

I suggest you visit a rain forest or a dessert

I know you weren't talking to me specifically, but... I live in a virgin forest.



TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I think there is widespread agreement that the Earth is showing an overall warming trend.

Some people, such as myself, believe that mans activities such as burning millions of years worth of accumulated carbon deposits and thus putting a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a rapidly intensifying greenhouse effect. Some people, again like myself, believe that man is not the SOLE reason for rapidly warming temperatures.

Some people think, I think, that the suns activity is the sole reason for increasing temperatures.

Some people are worked up about proposed programs that would tax carbon polluters and may be biased for or against the scientific evidence that would run counter to their understanding of the climate system.

I'm open minded but have yet to see any solid peer-reviewed evidence that mans activities are not contributing significantly to atmospheric changes.

Increasing temperatures increase CO2 release from increased decay of carbon usually locked up in permafrost. Increasing temperatures increase the stress on forest ecosystems by lowering water availability which increases chances of forest fires which in turn release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

[edit on 3/17/09 by stikkinikki]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





I'm gonna write a web site stating that the sky is going to fall due to too many mosquitoes in it... just to see how many people believe it.

You're WRONG!!. The sky is falling due to too FEW mosquitoes in it. You see, if there were a LOT OF mosquitoes, then their flapping of their wings would force the sky to RISE.
Besides, Al Gore told me so.

Evening' Redneck. Good to see you. Less than 3 days to spring- we've got to get those new trees in the ground next week to halt global whatchamacallit.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Evening, Prof!

I'm way ahead of you. I already planted a couple more water chestnut trees, and I'm planning on some pear trees and cherry trees this spring (there's something about just walking around and grabbing food off the plants that I like). That's not counting the trees that just spring up out of the ground by themselves... I guess no one told them they need someone to protect them before they can grow.


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





I guess no one told them they need someone to protect them before they can grow.

Shhhh. don't talk too loud, or Congress will hear you, and pass a "Seedling Protection Bill" with an initial outlay of, say, $500 Billion. Of course, they'll contract out the work to those that contributed the most to their campaigns. I heard Pelosi is already warning that there may be a need for Seedling Protection II Act.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8
 


I will try and explain how they come up with their figures to prove global warming is working.

It is a fact that 2 jets hit the twin towers on 9/11/01
we all saw it and know it is true reguardless of conspiracy, it is true.

now lets say that a reporter makes a typo and says that 2 jets hit the towers on 9/11/02
it does not change the fact that it occured, only now the numbers are wrong, but you still have the same result that 2 jets hit on 9/11 reguardless of year

Now if this was written exactly the same in Australia the 9/11 is read as the 9th day of November.
Still does not change the fact that 2 jets hit 2 towers only now we have the incorrect date but still the same answer.

No matter how it is written, they could get the day wrong or year wrong or even month wrong, yet they still come to the same conclusion that 2 jets hit 2 towers.

so these computer models are already worked out with a bias that the result is to be warmer no matter what data is getting fed in, if the result shows a cooling, they just move around the numbers to fit the answer as warming.

with all the data they have been putting into these models, already it has been shown that 2 methods give false high readings, and another which is still being determined (coral core samples)
Tree rings and black soil samples are unreliable sources of levels of Co2, yet they still use them in the computer models.
Imagine what the result would be like if they left just those 2 out of the equasion and again with the 3rd you may find the planet cooling.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8
 


I will try and explain how they come up with their figures to prove global warming is working.

It is a fact that 2 jets hit the twin towers on 9/11/01
we all saw it and know it is true reguardless of conspiracy, it is true.

now lets say that a reporter makes a typo and says that 2 jets hit the towers on 9/11/02
it does not change the fact that it occured, only now the numbers are wrong, but you still have the same result that 2 jets hit on 9/11 reguardless of year

Now if this was written exactly the same in Australia the 9/11 is read as the 9th day of November.
Still does not change the fact that 2 jets hit 2 towers only now we have the incorrect date but still the same answer.

No matter how it is written, they could get the day wrong or year wrong or even month wrong, yet they still come to the same conclusion that 2 jets hit 2 towers.

so these computer models are already worked out with a bias that the result is to be warmer no matter what data is getting fed in, if the result shows a cooling, they just move around the numbers to fit the answer as warming.

with all the data they have been putting into these models, already it has been shown that 2 methods give false high readings, and another which is still being determined (coral core samples)
Tree rings and black soil samples are unreliable sources of levels of Co2, yet they still use them in the computer models.
Imagine what the result would be like if they left just those 2 out of the equasion and again with the 3rd you may find the planet cooling.


And that’s the true heart of the matter. We have begun to understand, but we are far from comprehending the true working of this complex system.

There is also the whole argument that higher CO2 levels could promote another period like the medieval warm period (Climate Optimum ) which was one of humankinds most productive eras.

This missing bit concerns me allot
I am not sure that any models account for the natural response from organisms when CO2 levels are increased. (Plants increase their intake, evidence is used as a method to determine past CO2 levels based on fossil leaves. I forget what it’s called. Algae growth increases as does individual uptake. Etc )



[edit on 17-3-2009 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 





so these computer models are already worked out with a bias that the result is to be warmer no matter what data is getting fed in, if the result shows a cooling, they just move around the numbers to fit the answer as warming.

Yes, that is true. In fact, computer models just take the parameters that the designers BELIEVE to be the factors involved, and then input the data for those parameters, and the interactions that the model designer believe to be true. Models fail because for one or more of the following reasons:

1.) Inaccurate readings.
2.) Missing parameters
3.)Parameters that should not be in the model
4.)Incorrect programming of interactions
5.)Lack of sufficient observations or readings
6.)Small changes may result in large differences in the results
7.)Unknown complex interactions
8.)Fraudulent data

Modeling climate change is similar to modeling financial predictions, and we all know how wrong those models have been.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I don't think anyone ever said the earth isn't getting warmer and that global warming isn't real.
It is why it is happening that is the question.
The "man made lets tax people more" theory, seems to be more propaganda based than real scientific theory.
The scientific theory points to the earth just getting warmer and cooler over time regardless of who's living on it.
I think as you can see, that something of this magnitude, could be manipulated by certain people of influence and power.
To exploit it to there own gain.
Such as the cap and trade carbon thing.
Obviously there will be market makers who profit massively from this.
While the little people freeze to death because they aren't allowed to light a fire.
For example, Al Gore, bought carbon credits, from a company, he himself owned.
The corruption has been shown already.
And its barely even begun.
So I ask you to think again, about Global Warming, why its happening, and what to do about it.
Because clearly taxing little people more, is not an answer to anything.
And logically speaking will definitely not change the temperature of the Earth in any way.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainCaveMan

I don't think anyone ever said the earth isn't getting warmer and that global warming isn't real.
It is why it is happening that is the question.


Actually, I have made that statement. More specifically, I believe the data that says the Earth has been warming slightly in recent years, and I will consider the possibility that this trend may continue. I am not, however, ready to state that it will continue, especially since the current data suggests at least a major deceleration of the warming, probably a complete stoppage of global average temperature increases altogether for the time being, or possibly a reversal toward a cooling trend.

I believe this is the reason for the urgency of those who promote the
International carbon tax known as "Cap & Trade". No doubt they are aware of the things they claim to be false: that the climate change we have seen so far is minute, that the current data is indicating a change away from this recent warming trend, and that there is no serious threat at this time to life on Earth. Knowing this, is it any wonder that repeated bursts of Global Warming propaganda are being served up to the population, in faster and faster intervals, piping hot? (pun intended)

I watched a 'documentary' on Global Warming last night, which was little more than an interview with the illustrious Jim Hansen, co-creator of the International panic surrounding CO2 (along with Al Gore). As I suspected, his interview was laced with warnings about how terribly we could destroy our future generations and how governments must act by removing the ability of their peoples to prosper. As I suspected, when speaking of Kyoto as though it were some sort of Messianic mandate, nothing was mentioned about China or India (the two fastest-growing industrial countries, each with dismal pollution records already) being specifically excluded from the protocol... instead, attention was given to (accusation) sound bites from US officials when explaining their reluctance in signing the protocol, and how certain states (California, billions of dollars in debt with unemployment reaching new levels daily, was upheld as a shining example of how a country should operate) were "leading the way" in implementing this wonderful new 'science' of 'green energy'.

Another volley of misinformation and scare tactics, directed at an enemy who is precariously close to discovering their weakness.

Good post, CaptainCaveMan.


TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join