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.


Global warming cancelled?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by atlasastro
Its a factor. Wake up.

And lucky for us we have Al Gore to give us his infinite wisdom of how to reverse these effects. All we have to do is start living "green" and we can turn back the earth and control it's environment.

The earth will do what the earth will do. No amount of hybrid cars is going to change that.

Once again, I will ask the same question, when has the Earth, "done what it has always done" with this:6billion people effecting the planet the way we do, pollution, minning, deforestation, massive fossil fuel consumption, agriculture and livestck, re-direction and damning of waterways and rivers etc etc etc.

Wake Up.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:18 AM
co2 is high because of humans chopping down trees and putting down highways not from the cars themselves,

otherwise the carbon monoxide levels would also be higher but they are not. If you really care about OUR enviroment then we need to plant more and stop putting down roads and cutting down trees:

Everyone needs to care for this planet or all of us will suffer

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by atlasastro

It hasn't.

Having said that, how can you turn around and claim that these things are effecting the earth, since you have no other data to compare it to?

The earth's climate has gone through cyclical change since it's beginning. We aren't going to change that.

Maybe if you say "wake up" one more time though something good will happen. Maybe you'll take us back to Kansas.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by nyk537]

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:24 AM
To add insult to injury, we make findings such as this:

SaharaEarth wobble 12,000 years ago creates green Sahara

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:24 AM
Right now, the argument for human-caused global warming is Pseudo-science.

not that it is untrue. But simply that it is not proven by science.

Statistics is the basis for all "scientific" claims of climate change. But the problem with it is the method. When you form a hypothesis, the procedure is to construct a counter hypothesis (i.e, there is no manmade global warming), and then set a confidence level at which you will accept the results.

in most of statistics, that level of confidence is 5%. In other words, your results could be expected to lead you to a wrong conclusion less than 5% of the time.

When people say that man "definitely" causes GW, they have never given (me) their confidence level, or criteria for rejecting the null hypothesis.

When you don't have a pre-determined scientific criterion for rejecting the null hypothesis, you are no longer conducting scientific research.

Not that such research doesn't have value; not even that it's wrong; But I AM saying that it is not science.

It is pseudo science.


[edit on 1-10-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

Check out these confidence levels.
These Scientists are pretty confident.
Can you show me studies that argue to the contrary, and so inspiring a lack of confidence.

Here is a study examining the percieved lack of consensus in regards to the topic.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain.......Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

Can't wait to see someone post the oregon Petition.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by atlasastro]

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by peacejet

Your data doesnt match with the increased intensity of droughts and hurricanes over the decades, which can be proved easily as the after effects of global warming.

If one warms a body of water, then cools it again, exactly how does heat which is no longer present affect anything?

The very concept of 'after effects' is unscientific.

reply to post by enduser

If there are too many variables for us to know, how do you know global warming is a myth?

We also know very little about the life process. If a group of doctors were to decide that all disease could be cured by draining diseased blood from a patient, would it not still be silly to accept that as the ultimate cure?

We used to do exactly that, for that exact reason, you know. Just because we understand some of part of a system, it does not follow that we should start tinkering with it over a short-lived anomaly. This especially so when we see evidence of stabilization with no action taken.

reply to post by atlasastro

Why are the Artic, and antartic melting. Why is global glacial ice still melting.
If this is the lowest solar activity, why are we not experiencing cooler weather.
Imagine how hot the greenhouse effect will be when the sun kicks back into gear.

The arctic is melting. There are volcanoes erupting under the Arctic Ocean.

The Antarctic is not melting. The amount of ice in the Antarctic is at a maximum.

We are experiencing cooler weather globally. It may well be that you have seen no change, but that does not mean other areas are not. Are we to turn the GW debate into a test of how many people are warm as opposed to how many people are cold?

I really don't want to run our planet based on what someone could imagine. I can imagine elephants flying; I can imagine riding alligators to work. Neither is going to make an impact on society, the weather, or anything else.

Tell me this. How can you rule out anthropogenic global warming and climate change.
Where in the history of the earth do we observe 6billion people effecting the planet the way we do, pollution, minning, deforestation, massive fossil fuel consumption, agriculture and livestck, re-direction and damning of waterways and rivers etc etc etc. How do you rule this out if we have had no previous experience with this level of interaction, we simply cannot say it is insignificant. That is both dumb, and ignorant. Its a factor. Wake up.

I do not rule out anthropogenic effects. I simply analyze them in light of the information we do have about this incredibly complex atmospheric system we have. As part of that analysis, I look at the accuracy of present short-term weather predictions, the natural state of the atmosphere (as best as we can tell), any anomalous natural activity occurring, basic laws of physics as they apply to the climate system, the proposed 'solutions' from our leaders, and the possible conflicts of interest of those who are pushing the agenda.

So far, I have seen no irrefutable evidence that CO2 levels are causing any of the problems, and precious little that they are even contributing in any but a minor way to the problem. I am even having trouble believing the problem exists, to be perfectly honest. I have been fully convinced that the purpose of Global Warming as a theory is to create faux industries that benefit those in power.


posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:50 AM
I've seen the evidence and I currently feel that man-induced global warming is a real phenomenon. But I almost wish we had never heard of it. Why? Because it is too easy to scoff, too easy to ignore the message for the faults of the messenger, and too easy to exacerbate the situation purely out of spite. "I'll do what I want,", "It won't get me,", and worst of all, "Oh yeah? Watch this."

Reports on the low activity of the sun do not cause me to feel relief at the possibility that maybe some of our negative impacts will get cancelled out. I mourn stories like this. Before the awareness of global warming, we had more than enough reasons to change our ways. Pollution, weakening ecosystems as whole species were snuffed out or displaced, poisoned water – the list goes on and grows by the day. But with the publicity of global warming, the planet has ceased to be our only home as much as it is a bargaining tool, a campaign issue, a taboo. You don’t talk about the negative impacts that we have on this planet. You mock them. We’ve made a mockery of ourselves.

I’ve lived in the wilderness. It is a dark place, and it is the perfect neutral. It will feed you only to starve you, clothe you and then strip you naked to stand before the almighty power of weather. It doesn’t care what thoughts you hold in your head, or whether you are a good person or a monster. It gave you life and you will die by its hand. We can destroy it and be destroyed ourselves, but it will always have the last laugh. Always. It has survived catastrophe after catastrophe, and it has been reborn every time. Stories like these make us think we can win against the oldest force, that we can taunt fate. We can scoff, we can run our machines til the fuel runs dry, we can cut down every forest and slice the tops off every mountain. The wild will return – it always does. We won’t.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:10 PM
Please watch this video! It is a must see for anyone interested in actual facts about climate change and its history.

Apologies is no longer available i will try find elsewhere

[edit on 1-10-2008 by kcfusion]

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Let say you had a test which indicates that you MIGHT have cancer. As with all medical tests, there is rarely certainty in many cases. So you get a certain degree of likelihood that you have cancer. Will you disregard this, because biochemistry is such a hard science and there are "many factors" involved? Think about that.

I have, and it's a bad analogy. With cancer, there's going to be the threat of rapid or immediate death. Nobody has ever indicated that global warming is going to mean immediate death to the planet, or mankind, or anything. In fact, there is some research that indicates since most of the Earth's land mass is in subtropical regions, places like the tundra might benefit from global warming and become more capable of producing food and other products we need for the expanding population. Weather patterns might also change in all kinds of beneficial ways, and include revitalizing desert areas starved of rain that has been trapped in glaciers and polar caps.

Also, if I had a test that indicated I might have cancer, I would have a lot more tests before I ran off and started doing all kinds of treatment. And at the moment, the science indicating global warming is shaky at best, particularly when it comes to causation. Since the threat isn't immediate, it might be a good idea to wait and get a second, third, or whatever opinion.

No, what has happened is that global warming has become a political and marketing issue, having to do with who gets research funding, incentive financing, or which corporations can cash in by selling people "green" products they don't need, just so they can feel better about themselves.

Because, as you've framed the argument, the issue has become more of a moral or religious one. We've sinned with our greedy manufacturing and consumption, harmed the Earth, and now we must pay for our sins. Anyone who agrees with this is righteous and good, anyone who disagrees is evil and will suffer in a hot Hell of Earth. So the argument arises that is eerily like that of the Christians who say, "Why don't you just believe in Jesus, just to be on the safe side?" To which one can only answer, "Well, why not keep kosher, too, just to be on the safe side?"

Because at this time, global warming, if it even exists, has not been proven to be an inherently bad thing, or to be in any way a result of anything we do. There's also no indication that we can do anything about it.

So we need to dial back the rhetoric a little and get some decent data to see what's really going on before we change our behaviors and line somebody's pockets with cash as a result of a lot of fuzzy propaganda and marketing.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Nohup]

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:22 PM

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

Check out these confidence levels.
These Scientists are pretty confident.
Can you show me studies that argue to the contrary, and so inspiring a lack of confidence.

I wasn't talking about being sure of yourself. I was referring to a scientific tool called the confidence interval, which is a statistical concept, not an effulgence of egos.

But thanks for posting that. You lead me to my next point.

What you link to "sounds impressive." But it isn't science. It isn't a study. It's a . . . social register of impressive scientists.

An eerie parallel with the past. After newton became famous for his physics, he was made a member of the Royal Society. The RS was being beseiged with reports from country folk around the globe with tales of hot stones which fell from the clear blue sky. But Newton refused to believe in these so called "meteorites" because they might damage his theory of heavenly physics. If stones fell today, what held them up in the sky yesterday?.... So newton used his authority to crush any young scientist who attempted to investigate stories of meteorites. Because he was so authoritative, research into meteories was delayed a half-century.

He didnt cite science, because he had none. So he used his name, and the name of the Royal Society, to mock any counter-research as the work of superstitious rubes.

Here is a study examining the percieved lack of consensus in regards to the topic.

But that's a sociological study, not a . . . climate study.

So, what kind of study would satisfy me?

Well, I'd set some time periods in history to study. Both before and after humans are supposed to have impacted GW. Then I'd construct a matrix of temps over time. Then I'd apply a fourier transform to the data set, and look for alterations of the frequency and magnitued before human impact vs. after human impact.

I only know of one such study; it was done by NASA. NASA was accused of fudging its own data (first detected by a high school student, if I recall). Since then, NASA has withdrawn the original data from public scrutiny, but stands by its conclusions.

It is NASA, after all.


posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by atlasastro
Why are the Artic, and antartic melting. Why is global glacial ice still melting.
It's not. what you are saying is a fraud perpetrated on the public.
What is melting is what is floating in the ocean. The Antarctic ice is getting thicker and so is the Greenland ice, that is a little distant from the water.
There are more glaciers that are increasing than there are getting smaller.
There is plenty of evidence but the promoters of fear tactics only show what supports them, and ignore anything that disagrees with them.
I live in Florida and I can tell you it was hotter last summer than this one.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by jmdewey60

The "promoters of fear tactics" are NOT ignoring the fact that inland ice is growing. Nor does that fact dispute the reality of global warming. Warmer oceans equal more precipitation which equals more snow to build upon the ice. Therefore, the ocean-based ice is melting, while the land-based ice is growing due to receiving more snow than is usual. Both are a result of warmer oceans.

"Fraud" is a strong word and must be wielded carefully!

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Siblin
reply to post by jmdewey60

"Fraud" is a strong word and must be wielded carefully!
Right. The word implies that the propagators expect some kind of gain by passing off something false.
It is all about more of the crap that we see in the news today. You have tv networks that are owned by the same people who have their hands out for tax money, promoting the big bank swindle.(financial rescue)
Same thing with global warming. You have a whole industry based on tax swaps for the rich, building wind mills and such, that they bought from Enron.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by jmdewey60]

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:43 PM
global warming has been shoved down our throats to induce fear,anxiety and make us spend money on new products(better power consumption, recycled materials etc.)
the people that understand it know better it is just a cycle of earth related to the sun and it will always be here no matter what we do as a society. have you ever wondered why our calender is off and is never accurate(with in the last 200 yrs or so). first it has to do with the gregorian calender change 200 yrs ago which is just a average or middle point of our yearly cycle around the sun. but in truth we vary by 3.14 days from one extreme to another in our path around the sun. why 3.14 or pi.....because our time is measured in a circle or earth going around the sun but we dont stay the same path. so many thousand yrs we are closer to the sun and so many thousand yrs we are further away from the sun. thats why our yearly cycle varys . thats the main reason the ancients were so obsessed with watching the stars because they knew this and to correctly transverse the earth they had to know the relationship or current time for there directions. one thing we do now when we are looking for life in another solar system is we know that to support life the planet has to be in a certain path or distance from there star which correlates to a narrow band that could sustain life and just like us we have a narrow band that the earth goes through so when we are closer to the sun the earth gets more tropical,temps go up,more storms,ice caps melt,sea levels rise(flood storys),earthqaukes etc. when we are farthest away we go into an ice age type event. its just a natural cycle the earth goes through. but our earth also wobbles to one extreme to another on its axis so the earth also has a mini cycle with in a big cycle that i just explained. because of wobble on its axis so many yrs the north pole is more pointed to the sun and the south pole is more pointed to the sun like a very slow pendulum which is related to why we move closer into and farther from the sun. but because of this we also experience climate change depending on what part of the wobble is pointing to the sun. i could go on farther to explain more but just wanted to give you the general correlation.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:43 PM
I love the arguement that we don't know enough about weather or have studied it long enough to prove global warming,

yet one cool summer is enough to disprove it.

pick one.

so if next summer we all have record breaking heat, what are you going to say?
2007 was one of the hottest years on record. So now we have one of the coolest.
i don't think flip flopping is such a good thing either.

As I always say:

don't you get chills when you are running a fever?

The fact is, anything out of the ordinary signifies a problem.

Your blood pressure spikes up, it is a problem, but if it drops, it is a problem.

So does a cool summer cancel out global warming?

or does that mean their is an additonal symptom we are not aware of??

and just because there has been a problem in the past, such as cooling or warming, it doesn't make it natural, it could have meant, there was a problem at that time. A meteor we have not detected yet for instance. While not man made, it is an outside influence causing a distruption.

While my area was very cool this year, we have also had one of the driest months in history.

Global Warming is teh "average" overall temperature of the planet. There are going to be extremes, because of the effects on local weather. Which means weird stuff is going to happen like a lot of snow or cold.

There was a model once that if the ocean warms enough, the convective system of the ocean will stop, causing immediate and intense cooling.

so maybe our cool weather means that we maxed out the environment early and shtf.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by nixie_nox]

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:47 PM

Originally posted by atlasastro
Why are the Artic, and antartic melting[?] Why is global glacial ice still melting[?]

Glaciers worldwide have always been in recession, as far as Mankind is concerned. Since the end of the last major Ice Age, glaciers around the globe have retreated by thousands of miles, shrinking to mere trickles of their former presence on Earth...and thankfully so. If not for glacial retreat, only isolated pockets of humankind would still be struggling for survival, probably no more technically advanced than our Stone Age ancestors.

It always amuses me when shallow and ignorant global warming alarmists (who are often world leaders) venture out on their much-publicized fact-finding tours and end up in Iceland, gawking at retreating glaciers while surrounded by volcanos and geothermal activity. Do these people really have so little grasp of cause & effect?

The Arctic and Antarctic also go through cycles of expansion and recession, just as they have done all throughout the history of Earth. In point of fact, current evidence shows that the Arctic is retaining more ice than normal during its seasonal melt — meaning that the Arctic is accumulating more ice from year to year.

Current Arctic Sea Ice Analysis

I quote the above-linked site:
"Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the 2008 melt season was the higher-than-average retention of first-year sea ice (see earlier entries, including April 7). Relatively thin first-year ice is more prone to melting out completely than older, thicker ice. However, more of this year’s first-year ice survived the melt season than is typical. Sea ice age maps from Sheldon Drobot, our colleague at the University of Colorado at Boulder, show that much more first-year ice survived in 2008 than in 2007. This is one of the reasons that 2008 did not break last year's record-low minimum."

So much for the Arctic.

As for the Antarctic, the main area of concern for "manmade global warming" fanatics is the vast Western Ice Sheet, where we have seen steady ice recession and some recent break-aways. However, this period of Antarctic ice recession has been ongoing for some 10,000 years, predating manmade greenhouse gases all the way back into the Stone Age. Not too many SUVs around back then.

And, as a matter of fact, the most damnable revelation is that Antarctica's Western Ice Sheet is now getting thicker, which seems to mark a reversal of this 10,000 year melt cycle.

Antarctic Western Ice Sheet Thickening

I quote from the above-linked BBC story:
"Dr Ian Joughin, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Slawed Tulaczyk, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, say they have found strong evidence that the ice sheet in the Ross Sea area is growing, by 26.8 gigatons per year. Most of the growth is on an ice sheet called Ice Stream C. 'The ice sheet has been retreating for the last few thousand years, but we think the end of this retreat has come,' says Dr Joughin."

And, here's a little tidbit that was quickly swept under the carpet by manmade global warming fanatics earlier this year — a massive volcano exists beneath the Western Ice Sheet, probably contributing to Antarctic ice recession over the last 2000 years.

Volcano Under Antarctica's Western Ice Sheet

I quote from the above-linked story:
"A powerful volcano erupted under the icesheet of Antarctica around 2,000 years ago and it might still be active today, a finding which raises questions about ice loss from the white continent. The explosive event – rated 'severe' to 'cataclysmic' on an international scale of volcanic force – punched a massive breach in the icesheet and spat out a plume some 12 kilometres into the sky, said British scientists behind the find. Most of Antarctica is seismically stable. But its western part lies on a rift in Earth's crust that gives rise to occasional volcanism and geothermal heat, occurring on the Antarctic coastal margins. This is the first evidence for an eruption under the ice sheet itself – a slab of frozen water, hundreds of metres thick in places, that holds most of the world's stock of fresh water. Reporting in the journal Nature Geoscience this week, the investigators from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), In Cambridge, England, describe the finding as 'unique.' It extends the range of known volcanism in Antarctica by some 500 km and raises the question whether this or other sub-glacial volcanoes may have melted so much ice that global sea levels were affected, they said."

So much for manmade global warming and its impact on the Antarctic. A decade or so from now, we'll look back on this media-driven hysteria as one of the darkest periods in scientific credibility. And I think some heads should roll for causing it.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by Siblin

Warmer oceans equal more precipitation which equals more snow to build upon the ice. Therefore, the ocean-based ice is melting, while the land-based ice is growing due to receiving more snow than is usual. Both are a result of warmer oceans.

That conclusion would make sense if we discounted the fact that the Antarctic is not heating up. If you will look at , you will notice no average temperature increase for the Antarctic region from 1979 to 2005. The areas which are warming are in the tropic and subtropic regions, and there are several 'spiked' areas such as the Yukon, Eastern coast of S. America, and areas in Russia/India.

Any snowfall onto a glacial surface forms ice under the weight of additional snowfalls. This weight also presses the ice into a slow flow which carries it from the region where it formed into warmer areas. this allows for the melting of said ice back into water, which is then evaporated and falls again as snow to form more ice. It's a cycle.

If the inner land-based areas are increasing in snowfall, this indicates one of several causes, only one of which is increased evaporation due to rising temperatures. Snowfall (just as in rainfall) is determined by the temperature differential between two masses of air, not by the temperature of either one alone. A differential can occur because one air mass is warmer or because a different air mass is colder. The only other requirement is the formation of snow instead of rain, which requires that the warmer air mass is below 0°C (32°F).

There are multiple other reasons why precipitation amounts will vary. A decrease in temperature differential (not in average temperature) is only one of these. Considering the cyclic nature of ice flows mentioned above, we can conclude that it is possible the amount of snow over the last time period would have slowed, but that such snowfall amounts are now increasing and will lead to an increase in the size of outer flows later in the cycle. This would also indicate (barring further research) that the snowfall differential is, at least in this most recent event) cyclical in itself and is already correcting itself.


posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by atlasastro
There is no evidence that any artic melting has been caused by mankind let alone increases in C02. When real scientist are telling us that the output of the sun has decreased significantly and the world is headed into imminent dangerous cooling we sould listen. See To impoverish ourself by destroying our way of life and ecconomy because of one political agency advocating such, the IPCC is foolhardy as we will be less prepared to deal with lower food output because of reduced solar output. Finally the artic is again expanding as its summer is overwith and the media has misrepresented Anartica as melting when infact it has been getting colder there for the last 35 years. I would suggest to everyone to go out and buy more winter clothing as many scientist are predicting a hard winter as is now being experenced by the southern hemisphere.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

That is interesting about the cycling flow of ice, thanks for the explanation; as I understand it, the ice moves at a maximum of a few feet per year.

The map you provided, however, does not show that there was no average increase in temperature for Antarctica. It actually states that there was insufficient data for the region to produce a reliable temperature trend. It's true -- this trend, whatever it is, is being debated. According to some data that we do have, most of the Antarctic is not heating up -- in fact the majority of it seems to be slowly getting cooler. The part experiencing the melting and the publicity, as you mentioned, is mainly the Antarctic Peninsula, which is comparatively tiny (but is where most studies have taken place, unfortunately). The Antarctic is an interesting case in that there have been, in some locations, an apparent increase of sea ice.

That is curious and perhaps an emblem of the true complexity of climate, for many of the climate change models predicted that the whole of Antarctica should be getting warmer. Time will tell just how accurate those figures are (majority cooling, minority warming), for Antarctica is a vast, harsh desert, and testing equipment suffers for it. NASA released a temperature map not too long ago showing the results gathered by satellite (in the accompanying article they touch upon the problems with ground testing, as well as the ones that exist for satellite testing). Here you can see one released three years before that. The two maps show some similarities, but visually they reveal very different trends.

The precipitation that reaches the Antarctic comes from the Southern Hemisphere. The storms form there and pick up moisture and heat that they take to the south. Most of the time, storms are unable to penetrate very far into the Antarctic continent. However, when winter approaches, the pressure differences increase, and storms are then capable of moving further inland. Much of the Antarctic is a desert and therefore receives very little overall precipitation. Whether or not the interior of the Antarctic is receiving more snow than usual depends on which study you subscribe to. I have read that the inland areas have grown by several billion metric tons, and I have also read that all snowfall has been constant, unchanging for fifty years. We shall see.

EDIT: Ugh for my internet connection...

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Siblin]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in