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.

 

Hey Dude - Where's my Global Warming?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Demandred
 


o rlly?

Just where are you that it's so above normal ... in the sauna ?
Nowhere in Australia today is it so far above average. It was -3 in Canberra this morning, maxed out at 13 in Melbourne. Top is Darwin at 33 ... that's about average. Get your facts straight.
Also ... drought does not equal AGW. Hey, my dog has 4 legs, my cat has 4 legs ... therefore my cat is a dog .... sure




posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I think the brains of the world have just figured a way to take the power away from the oil companies. Just throw a bill gates Y2K scare monger campaign that says that fossil fuels are going to destroy the world. Then the conservationists jump on board and state their case about how every ant on the planet is important, and the investors around the world seeing the wave of change and doing what they can to get their slice of what could be the next big thing. Put these ingredients together and you have got global warming



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
These articles may or may not be truthful, in fact there's a good chance they are basing their criticism on deliberately falsified data (more on that later) so they can be 'refuted' when needed, further bolstering the cause AGW.

when that happens, anyone who used an article such as this one will be considered debunked, too, which is the probable goal.


you can't trust statistics, they are juggling the data sets, they are cooking and omitting left right and center, see

www.abovetopsecret.com...

or

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

in a nutshell, their graphs are known to jump all over the place, which basically puts a question mark above all the rest, too, they shut down athmospheric monitors by the thousands in the early 1990s and all subsequent data sets are no longer comparable. if you adhere to the rules, that is.

coincidentially, AGW took off at the same time. orchestrated from the get-go.

[edit on 2008.7.23 by Long Lance]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
One of the problems with discussions like this is that those who do not want to beleive that humans can affect the climate, refuse to accept any scientific evidence supporting such a contention - because clearly the scientists involved 'have an agenda'. Though, oddly, they're always quite happy to accept any sceptical scientist who presents evidence of natural changes - who clearly doesn't have an agenda


It does make any serious debate difficult!

So I'll just remake what I consider the main pertinent points:

1) The physical science behind the theory that so-called greenhouse gases warm the Earth's atmosphere has never been scientifically refuted. Nor has the theory than a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere generates approximately 1c of additional warming, all else being equal.

2) There are many ways that human activity affects the climate - locally, regionally and globally - other than through GHG emissions. A well known example is the Urban Heat Island effect. Was it warmer in the city last night than out in the surrounding countryside? Well that's Anthropogenic Local Warming. Again, no-one has refuted this.

And if you get lots and lots of Anthropogenic Local Warming then, all else being equal, doesn't that equate to small bit of Anthropogenic Global Warming? (If you average the temp of the whole earth, and 1% of it it warmer, then the average is also warmer!)

3) No-one denies that natural processes also cause warming and cooling (but some people do conveniently ignore this, don't they Mr Gore
)

Amazing though it may seem to some, it's not a case of natural or anthropogenic warming. Both can and do occur. At the same time! And we can get anthropogenic cooling and natural warming or vice versa also happening at the same time!

So to work out climate change it's simply a matter of determining all the natural processes (warming and cooling), all the anthropogenic processes (warming and cooling), calculating which contribute what, how they interact, what feedbacks (positive and negative) all these many, many processes causes, and then finally predicting probable future scenarios if some or other of these many, many processes continue or change. Not that straightforward! Which is way many of us continue to dispute IPCC predictions.

Of course, it may be that some people who admit to not being scientists have already done all this and that's why they are so sure in their assertions and refusal to listen to the scientists?

Finally

4) Some argue that there is current global cooling and that this disproves AGW. It doesn't. It just means we don't yet fully understand all the processes, how they interact, and which have the biggest effects. As I have often pointed out, it's possible for us to enter a new Ice Age - have glaciers bearing down ion New York city - and still be experiencing AGW (it would just mean that the cooling processes causing the ice age were stronger than the anthropogenic warming processes. The net result would be an ice age that was just not quite as cold as it would otherwise have been).



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   
All I have to say is... Tell that to the people that have lost their lives in fires, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes in the past year. The number of homeless Im sure is way up... more then it was anyways.

I still want to know when people will start realizing that once the world gets too warm it will expand and the tectonic plates will start moving again.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by rjmelter
 


Weather events to not corralate to global warming. Ask james hanson why there were less hurricanes as it got warmer, yet they predicted 30 or more hurricanes per yr. The earth changes daily, monthy, yearly and will keep doing so even if we are not here.

This whole thing just pisses me off, sorry. Co2 is inert and only makes up a tiny amount of the gasses of our atmosphere. Co2 also cannot retain as much energy as these so called experts thought. Why is there no warming in the trophosphere?



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stinkhorn
 


Weather events too correlate. Rise in sea temperatures causes more heat around the world globally... the coldest parts of the earth will push harder against the heat and cause much larger hurricanes and tornadoes...

That said. All of these events are more then likely due to government manipulation and they are using global warming as a cover story... do I think the world is heating up... yes i do. We are runing this world. The Coral Reefs are dissappearing.. Wild animals are coming up to people. more then 3 Animals have gone extinct in the past year. I am a runner I run outside every year for the past 8 years. I CAN TELL YOU ITS GETTING HOTTER. Call me a liar and we will compete. Regardless of what people thing something is going on... The cause? Humans.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

1) The physical science behind the theory that so-called greenhouse gases warm the Earth's atmosphere has never been scientifically refuted. Nor has the theory than a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere generates approximately 1c of additional warming, all else being equal.


did these models take cloud cover into account? i cannot understand why people with PhDs pretend they don't understand the concept of negative feedback. i mean it's in use everywhere, or how do you think an analog amplifier works?

if such a thing as 'runaway warming' existed, it would have been triggered long ago. i hope there's no doubt that the earth underwent both, warmer and much colder climates in the past - and recovered.



2) There are many ways that human activity affects the climate - locally, regionally and globally - other than through GHG emissions. A well known example is the Urban Heat Island effect. Was it warmer in the city last night than out in the surrounding countryside? Well that's Anthropogenic Local Warming. Again, no-one has refuted this.


land use will affect climate, no doubt. so, why do we maximize irrigated land growing monocrops for fuel?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

people chopped down forests for fuel until the advent of coal, and later, oil and methane. going back to 'bio' - fuels may have its place, where such fuel sources are comparably abundant, it's clearly a de-volutionary, step, however, which is, by and large, NOT conducive to environmental improvements. reduced consumption, yes, corn ethanol, hell no.


yet, CO2 continues to be vilified for litterally no reason, at the expense of everything else. i heard the AMazon basin rainforest is now being chopped down to 'save' the planet


actions speak volumes and talk is cheap.

[edit on 2008.7.23 by Long Lance]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by remelter

 


Weather events too correlate. Rise in sea temperatures causes more heat around the world globally... the coldest parts of the earth will push harder against the heat and cause much larger hurricanes and tornadoes...



Please so me a paper with the scientific data to back it up. That hasn't proven to be the case, if it did we would have had one of the worst Hurricane Seasons on record. The Sun and the El Nino and La Nina have tons to do with the worldwide weather patterns. The current La Nina is probably the reason for the relative mild Hurricane seasons the last 16-18 months.

As to you statement about the numbers of deaths and homeless due to bad weather, it's been like that since time immemorial. We just have worldwide access to events now. In the Late 1800's would most of the world had even known there was a massive earthquake in China or that a Cyclone killed 75,000 in the Bay of Bengal? I think not. The information age gives the IMPRESSION of more events happening when it is basically just more REPORTING of said events.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by remelter
I still want to know when people will start realizing that once the world gets too warm it will expand and the tectonic plates will start moving again.


You do realize the plates have been moving for Millions of years right? They aren't fixed in place. Do you anticipate the circumference of the World to grow with Global Warming? I am aware of Neal Adams theory and while intriguing, it doesn't seem to have many backers.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rjmelter
 


Dude, learn to think, examine and experiment, then go back and do it again. We are talking about science, not religion. Hot weather does not cause hurricanes to grow larger or more frequent. Actually, if you increased the temp around a hurricane, it would dissapate because hurricanes, like tornados need cool air to make them form. You see, the cold air pushes the warm air higher and condenses it into a massive storm, you would not have rotation without cool or cold air.

Humans are polluting the earth, we are pigs, but we are not causing warming, Co2 is not a pollutant no matter how much you put into the atmosphere. There is also a limit to how much Co2 can be forced into the atmosphere at any time. You want to blame something, blame the largest body of living things on earth, blame bacteria, they convert dead material into Co2, nitrite and nitrate. They do this when they are warmed by the one and only cause THE SUN.

The earth has been cooling for the past 10 years, we have been downtrending since 1998, look it up. Pollution and global warming are not the same and never will be. You want to do some good for the planet, go clean the garbage from a stream or river.

If you really think that humans are the cause, are you willing to kill yourself and launch yourself into space so you do not decompose here on earth? Are you willing to launch death row inmates, repeat sex offenders and just plain volunteers? If humans are such a big deal, get rid of half the population by launching them into the sun.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by stinkhorn]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

did these models take cloud cover into account?


I'm told (by scientists involved in climate research) that models do take such things into account. I'm not at all convinced cloud cover is modelled adequately though. I cannot however prove that to be the case



land use will affect climate, no doubt. so, why do we maximize irrigated land growing monocrops for fuel?


You tell me!



yet, CO2 continues to be vilified for litterally no reason, at the expense of everything else. i heard the AMazon basin rainforest is now being chopped down to 'save' the planet


Exactly!

IMO CO2 does have some effect. But we're unlikely to be able to do much about that. We can however do something about some of teh other things we do that affect climate.

btw tropical deforestation also has an possible serious impact on rainfall distribution - in places like the USA

www.nasa.gov...




actions speak volumes and talk is cheap.


Indeed




Originally posted by stinkhorn

Humans are polluting the earth, we are pigs, but we are not causing warming, Co2 is not a pollutant no matter how much you put into the atmosphere. There is also a limit to how much Co2 can be forced into the atmosphere at any time. You want to blame something, blame the largest body of living things on earth, blame bacteria, they convert dead material into Co2, nitrite and nitrate. They do this when they are warmed by the one and only cause THE SUN.


So are you saying that CO2 produced by human activities has no effect on climate, but CO2 produced by bacteria does?

As I pointed out before, there is no refutation of the theory that a doubling of CO2 will produce about 1c of warming.

We can argue all we like about whether non anthropogenic forcing are currently in greater control, and causing cooling. But that does not change the fact that AGW is a reality.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


No, Co2 is not a pollutant, therefor, it is not causing GW. Why blame humans when bacteria produce more Co2 than humans could ever hope to or want to.

Do you know the make up of all the gasses in the atmosphere? What is the percentage of Co2? Maybe particulate matter is more responsible, did you know that in LA after all these years they tested exactly what comprised the air or particulate matter in the air that creates smog over the city? Want to know what the largest portion of that pollution was? Dandruff or skin flakes from humans and animals, how gross.

NASA has tempreture sensor set up around the US, this is where they get 80-95% of their temp data. Their data is flawed, skewed and in error because of the locations of these sensors. All SAT data points to a cooling over th past 10 years, no stupid computer models, actual data.

There has never been 1 iota of warming detected in the stratosphere, that is where the warming would be, if there were any. What they found was that around cities it was warmer, but that is it. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling. The warming in cities is local only and cannot warm the rest of the planet.

You want to know where global warming is coming from? Al and Tipper Gores fat asses, they blow more methane then the rest of us.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by stinkhorn]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by Essan
 


No, Co2 is not a pollutant, therefor, it is not causing GW. Why blame humans when bacteria produce more Co2 than humans could ever hope to or want to.


Why blame bacteria when CO2 apparently has no effect on temperature? Make up your mind.

Do you agree with science that CO2 is a GHG gas? Do you have an explanation why a doubling of CO2 should not result in about a 1c temp rise?

www.lenntech.com...



NASA has tempreture sensor set up around the US, this is where they get 80-95% of their temp data.


Who cares about the US? It's just a very tiny, inconsequential, part of the Earth's surface.



There has never been 1 iota of warming detected in the stratosphere, that is where the warming would be, if there were any.


Why? In fact, if the troposphere is warming, the theory says the stratosphere should be cooling.

www.wunderground.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stinkhorn
 



Pollution and global warming are not the same and never will be. You want to do some good for the planet, go clean the garbage from a stream or river.

Absolutely!!


As I've written in a few threads, the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. When it was created it was a molten ball of rock. Something happened, and life is here. Now. As I type.

100,000 years ago the planet was in an ice age. Based on the IPCC view of the climate (and others), we shouldn't have come out of it, but we did. Life survived. Now we're on the side that goes up.

They keep highlighting the part about "since the 70s there has been accelerated warming". What happened in the 70s?

As they showed recently, because we've been cleaning up industry, temperatures are rising as a direct result of the sky being clearer. Pollution actually reflected energy back into the atmosphere.

Re-read my post on the previous page, too.

I'm all for cleaning up and not polluting, but there is far too much emphasis on CO2 and global warming, when ther are other far more serious environmental problems that need tackling.

A bit of ice melts - so what? The rivers running brown and foaming due to chemicals is far more of a hazard to life and the planet.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
A very interesting interview with Australian scientist Dr David Evans regarding climate change. If it's already been posted please delete.

www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=1748



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


I agree 100%, screw global warming and scientists that are riding the GW grant wave. Why are there so many studying climate these days? Money, free money.

Clean the damn water. Go after the factories that dump billions of gallons of toxic chemicals into our waterways, go after every litter bug with jail time. The earth warming is a good thing, drinking dioxin water mixed with feces and MTBE is not.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


yes, but you would be very wrong to advocate that humans are the only cause of this. just as it seems like you have been doing for a while now.

we may affect the temperature, but not nearly as much as the cyclic nature of weather and the sun. these are simply thing that have happened in the past, and things that will happen in the future. no matter how "green" we go, there will be the steady change in weather..

and yes, other planets are going through very similar weather change patterns. please research before you off handedly, write my statments off as false. it helps your credibility more



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


that's intellectually dishonest. how many REAL volcanoes erupt every year???

my guess is not many.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Your right about the ice because theres scientific evidence to say that there is more ice now than there has been in the past 100 years



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join