Undeniable 10 Evidence's of Global Warming

Please Please Melatonin explain to our young hot heads the lack of a link and or difference between Eutrophication of Canadian and Scandinavian lakes and CO2 production please.

I really appreciate you factual contributions, I agree with your facts however not the causes of them (sorry).

SO2 and CO production in the 70's were being blamed for melting sandstone statues in Gothenburg. That if I remember was one of the main reasons for introducing catalytic converters (not a monopoly on the cadmium catalysed process of course) in a mesure to reduce Co by producing CO2. I am sure you can explain this far better than I. I just get so tired of everyone arguing for the wrong reasons. I REALLY don't care who or what is responsible for GW, I want my tax money spent on dealing with it not trying and inevitably failing to stop it.

Please help with one of your super posts please.

Oh and DDT is NOT banned.
Wrong calculations in the 50's and 60's were responsible for the build up of DDT in birds, that and something called adsorption. Carefully monitored and applied in the correct way it works very well thank you. Also the WHO or the UN doesn't have the authority to ban anything, god forbid if they ever got that power.

Originally posted by Deharg
Please Please Melatonin explain to our young hot heads the lack of a link and or difference between Eutrophication of Canadian and Scandinavian lakes and CO2 production please.

Not sure who you're referring to, but I'll try...

Well, Eutrophication is due to excessive plant growth in lakes which leads to oxygen deprivation and decline in water quality. This tends to be due to nitrogen compounds. Can be sourced from atmospheric pollution, but I'm sure fertilisers have a big influence.

Not really related to CO2 per se, but fossil fuel emissions have some impact through resultant Nitrogen gases.

I really appreciate you factual contributions, I agree with your facts however not the causes of them (sorry).

That's cool, I'm sure there's room in the world for differing positions.

SO2 and CO production in the 70's were being blamed for melting sandstone statues in Gothenburg. That if I remember was one of the main reasons for introducing catalytic converters (not a monopoly on the cadmium catalysed process of course) in a mesure to reduce Co by producing CO2.

Not sure on the catalytic converter thing, but SO2 and NO2 emissions did result in acid rain (and poor air quality) which had (and still has) a number of detrimental effects, such as dissolving limestone, reacting with church roofs (lead), acidifying lakes, human health, etc.

So many clean air acts aimed to reduce this effect.

Please help with one of your super posts please.

I'm not sure they're that good, lol. Cheers anyway.

reply to post by melatonin


nah, let's just say that cooking your dislodged and canned coral specimen or dissolving in soda (aka acidification) is probably not representative.

besides, when talking about toxins, the advantage is that they can after all be phased out, thereby eliminating one cause. i'm certain that's not going to fly well (no pun intended) with people who are known not to do as they preach, but it would be a start, wouldn't it?

the problem as i see it is that you're more than willing to equate local phenomena with global (

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by melatonin

 

nah, let's just say that cooking your dislodged and canned coral specimen or dissolving in soda (aka acidification) is probably not representative.

lol

with people who are known not to do as they preach[/url], but it would be a start, wouldn't it?

It would.

the problem as i see it is that you're more than willing to equate local phenomena with global

Moi? Don't think so.

There are other issues for coral bleaching, never said there wasn't. But we do know that ocean acidification and rising temps are a problem. As for the weather point, the problem is that as oceanic climate warms, the noisy transient variations (i.e. weather) start from a higher baseline. Thus, temperature will more often reach the stress-inducing levels for coral.

So, it's no surprise to see it higlighted as a problem in the media. Indeed, just very recently corals, acidification and temps were in a news report. I don't find it shocking.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by melatonin]

Ooh ooh

Its called Global Dimming.

look at some vids on youtube.
Basicly for the lack of rain in africa an what not.
Rain patterns shift because of air travel the vapour trails left by planes.
have carbon bits which is like dust an theres dust in the atmosphere normaly
but the carbon is more jagged an holds more water when up in the upper atmosphere so instead of letting go over africa and making rain.
it keeps going to say indonesea and creats big monsoons an flooding.

also a second affect of vapour trails is cooling effect.
as said in whatever vid I think they did it on "Panorama" or "Horizon"
the 3 days after 911 when all air traffic over north america was grounded there was a temp increace of 3oC.
you yanks would be more familliar with hearing it from Al Gore.
however the name of it global dimming is not atributed.

Talking of al gore the inconvinent truth was okay to watch but what was not called for was the little jabs about how he lost the election. So it was rigged you american's don't stand for anything less than lies.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by retso]

I got it, let's put a thermometer on the Sun!

30,000 Scientists in a class action suit filed by the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman against Al Gore refute "Man Made Global Warming" because it is clearly a cycle of the Sun.

A thousand years ago, Vikings colonized and named "Greenland", which later became a gigantic Glacier and permafrost.

I don't like the idea of being taxed for air under very false pretenses, maybe you do.

You want to reduce CO2 Emissions? Stop the felling of old forest trees, like in the Amazon and in the Sudan, and start planting trees and Industrial Hemp everywhere. Hemp is the most bio efficient crop there ever was, and it's outlawed?!? You get higher from a bakery role sprinkled with poppy seeds...


Plant life takes in CO2 during the day and releases O2 at night, duh!

I got it, let's put a thermometer on the Sun!

30,000 Scientists in a class action suit filed by the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman against Al Gore refute "Man Made Global Warming" because it is clearly a cycle of the Sun.

A thousand years ago, Vikings colonized and named "Greenland", which later became a gigantic Glacier and permafrost.

I don't like the idea of being taxed for air under very false pretenses, maybe you do.

You want to reduce CO2 Emissions? Stop the felling of old forest trees, like in the Amazon and in the Sudan, and start planting trees and Industrial Hemp everywhere. Hemp is the most bio efficient crop there ever was, and it's outlawed?!? You get higher from a bakery role sprinkled with poppy seeds...


Plant life takes in CO2 during the day and releases O2 at night, duh!

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
I got it, let's put a thermometer on the Sun!

30,000 Scientists in a class action suit filed by the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman against Al Gore refute "Man Made Global Warming" because it is clearly a cycle of the Sun.

Well, this would be a good theory except there is little correlation between sun spot activity and global temperature.

Here is a graph comparing sunspot activity, CO2 concentrations, and global temperatures. It clearly shows that there is a greater correlation b/w CO2 concentrations and global temperatures.

i127.photobucket.com...


Also, here is an article from the BBC that explains why the cosmic ray hypothesis contained in the TV documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is clearly false.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If after looking at and reading the two links I provided you still believe that solar activity is the true cause of GW, I guess I will have to say that you are not trying to Deny Ignorance and instead are attempting to Deny Truth.

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
A thousand years ago, Vikings colonized and named "Greenland", which later became a gigantic Glacier and permafrost.

Well, without doing some research I am not sure if you are correct or not about this. However, I do remember reading once that the vikings named Iceland and Greenland as a form of propaganda. Essentially, Iceland was actually "green" and Greenland was actually "ice." Basically, they did this to prevent people from coming to Iceland (their homeland) in hopes that they would instead travel to Greenland. Basically, I think you are wrong and that even in the days of the vikings Greenland was a giant glacier.

If nothing else, your theory (that the vikings named Greenland because it was "Green" combined with the fact that it is today mostly a giant glacier somehow disproves the Global Warming theory) is proved false by the fact that the vikings also named Iceland which today, is relatively free of ice.

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
I don't like the idea of being taxed for air under very false pretenses, maybe you do.

Well, actually neither you nor I are being taxed by any carbon tax. The tax is implemented upon CO2 producing industries like oil, coal, and other polluters.

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
You want to reduce CO2 Emissions? Stop the felling of old forest trees, like in the Amazon and in the Sudan, and start planting trees and Industrial Hemp everywhere. Hemp is the most bio efficient crop there ever was, and it's outlawed?!? You get higher from a bakery role sprinkled with poppy seeds...

I do agree with you here. Deforestation is one of the leading causes of the rise in global CO2 concentrations. I also agree that Hemp is a veritable wonder plant. It has many uses including being an excellent CO2 filter.

On a side note, I have also recently heard that it is speculated that 80% of the pharmaceutical drugs being produced today could be eliminated simply by substituting marijuana in their place (with far fewer harmful side effects for its users by the way, especially if used in conjunction with a vaporizer).

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
I
Plant life takes in CO2 during the day and releases O2 at night, duh!

not quite, plants turn CO2 into O2 in light and the reverse in darkness. it's true, however that by not taking CO2 sinks into account, the UN has revealed its colors. because if any of it mattered, it wouldn't be just about money.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

China of all places receives the lion's share, wtf?

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
I got it, let's put a thermometer on the Sun!

.

A thousand years ago, Vikings colonized and named "Greenland", which later became a gigantic Glacier and permafrost.

If there was an ATS version of the Razzie award, I would give it right to you.
This is one of the funniest things I have heard all day.

Erik the Red named it Greenland because he was trying to entice other people there by making it sound appealing. A viking version of a tourist trap. Some parts of it are green and pretty at certain parts of the year.

The vikings did set up a little colony and did fairly well for bit but then suddenly dissappeared which is a mystery to this day.

(Has that topic ever been covered on ATS?)

Apparently, Greenland is losing its ice, so it may be nice and green for you again.

NASA reveals ice melt April 2008

reply to post by nixie_nox


Leave him nixie, he is a troll.

These AGW supporters wont look at the overwhelming evidence available, instead they just think that this year was cold in North America, so there is no global warming/climate change.

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

Here is a graph comparing sunspot activity, CO2 concentrations, and global temperatures. It clearly shows that there is a greater correlation b/w CO2 concentrations and global temperatures.

There's SIX reason's that there ""only looked" to be poor correlation between Sunspot activity and global temperatures,[1] The graph is not corrected for the urban heat island effect in the top section,[2] The effect that the "sunspot length" has is not included,See Fig. 4.[3]The the sun's barycentric oscillations are not included,[4] Thermal increase due to geomagnetic interaction between the Sun and Earth magnetic fields are not included.[5] Energetic flares increase the Sun's ultraviolet radiation by at least 16 percent.[6]The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999)

New Little Ice Age
Instead of Global Warming?
www.schulphysik.de...

Figure 1. Temperature and CO2 levels over 600 million years
Note that, as the graph shows, carbon dioxide levels don’t have that much correlation with temperature
www.paulmacrae.com...

No feedback.
www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be...

A look at a longer time period of Co2,So much for the lie of pre-industrial levels!
www.biokurs.de...

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


I wouldnt be so quick to say that there is no correlation between sunspots and temps:
www.tmgnow.com...

reply to post by nixie_nox


An update for the North Pole Ice:

Back to 1979 levels!
www.dailytech.com...

Now as to what this means for the AGW folks who predicted no ice this year.... well.

Just goes to show how even the so called "professionals" can miss this.

Oh and I don't know if anyone has been paying attention to the news but apparently 2008 has been a very cool year. And also apparently, the decade so far from 2000-2008 has been cooler than the 90s. And even better, it hasn't seen it this cool especially here in Chicago, since 1930s.

archives.chicagotribune.com...


So should we all now jump back to global cooling as it was all the rage by the scientists during the 70s? In all seriousness, all this shows is that man has about as much an understanding and handle on our climate as he does trying to stop a 60mph freight train with his bare hands. And climate models are worth squat when you can tamper with it and add any kind of data you want AND leave out any other data you think might ruin your pre-conceived notions. Remember all the dire predictions by scientists after H. Katrina of more and more powerful hurricanes every year that will spawn and swamp the coasts? What happened? At or below normal amounts of hurricanes. Which just goes to show how well "predictions" are.

Which is exactly why i don't fall for junk science on AGW.

global warming is happaning, because we are coming out of a colder period of the earth, it is NOT man made, infact, acourding to the man made global wamring theory, its the cows to blame.

A few things that are happening is....

The water towards the top is going through a phase called "Freshening", this is were the water cools and alters the path of the current of (forgive me, i cannot remember the actual name of the cannel, but its the one that is in the atlantic, which cases the path of volcano's and keeps britan warm) causing more hurricanes and storms to hit land, were they would originaly hit the sea.

Freshening happends because the cannel warms up the ice, causing it to melt, thus ice caps melting, and cooling down the cannel.

Then there is the sun. The sun affects the earth in many ways, one of which is cloud coverage, if there is more cloud, there is going to be more rain, if there is less cloud coverage, there is going to be more drought.

sorry for being brief on the explanation and subject, but i dont want to be writing this all night, quite alot of explanations for natrual climate change, because theres alot of factors in it. Its alot more complex than leaving a tv on, causing more energy consumed, thus more co2 being pumped in etc.

Also, just to say, if man made global warming was correct, why the hell over christmas do the towns and citys have huge display of xmas lights, on for the majority of the day (being winter, darker longer) and then tell us that WE need to make sure we switch our ONE bulb of every time we leave the room??

And why dont they plant more tree's instead of cutting them down??

If it was a real danger, i would not mind stopping cutting down trees and having slightly duller xmas to save my plannet.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by Trolloks]

Originally posted by GenRadek
An update for the North Pole Ice:

Back to 1979 levels!
www.dailytech.com...

Now as to what this means for the AGW folks who predicted no ice this year.... well.

Just goes to show how even the so called "professionals" can miss this.

Tamino from the OpenMind blog has a post just for you!

linky

Oh and I don't know if anyone has been paying attention to the news but apparently 2008 has been a very cool year. And also apparently, the decade so far from 2000-2008 has been cooler than the 90s.

Not at all. You have just been winked by the denier hoods.

1991-2000 vs. 2001-2008



1990-1999 vs. 2000-2008

So should we all now jump back to global cooling as it was all the rage by the scientists during the 70s?

By a handful. The support during the 70s for such an idea is remarkably exaggerated, but such claims fulfill a devious purpose.

Which is exactly why i don't fall for junk science on AGW.

lol

[edit on 10-1-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


In Response to BluegrassRevolutionary

“So let me get this straight. To you, a rise in temperature that allows the spread of the malaria carrying mosquito thus enabling a rise in infections, "does not pass the logic test." However, somehow, using toxic DDT which has extreme adverse affects on bird populations seems more logical? Dude, get a grip. "

Yes I do. Here are some references for you. (It was easy, try Google)

100 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT DDT

As the Third World now knows, there is no ready substitute for DDT.

Safe DDT [ TIME MAGAZINE ]

So Dude, you might want to Google "Malaria Deaths" . Billions have died to date and DDT is the most effective treatment. Would you advocate the use of screening and better housing in exchange for preventable deaths?

Wait, don't answer, I'm sure I'd be disappointed.

Breaking News, WHO has made some changes ! They Now Advocate DDT in the Prevention of Malaria Deaths !

Anyhow, the prevalence of Malaria has been a global issue over the years throughout the world and to conclude that a perceived warming is the only cause is most likely in error. Try searching the history of Malaria.

Did you happen to notice that the OP's post indicated a rise in malaria infections in Italy and not in America? It seems to me like you AGW debunkers are just grasping at straws and looking for anything that supports your debunking, whether it makes sense or not.

Answer, yes I did "happen to notice" OP's post. Diversionary at best and not sound reasoning. Try checking the suggested search term in the original text and also review the statement above.

How does the spread of malaria in Italy have anything to do with malaria being present in cooler regions as mentioned?

And OP's opinion supersedes clearly documented history and makes the point mute? Really?

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? I mean, I give you kudos for at least admitting that the earth is getting warmer (much better than some on this site). However, denying the impact of increased CO2 production is naive at best. Again lets look at the FACTS. 1. The earth is getting warmer. 2. Humans are creating greater CO2 concentrations than we know to have ever existed in the last 650,00 years. (and expect the concentration to more than double in the next few decades) 3. Scientists have proven a direct correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperature. 4. Thus when we (mankind) produces alarming levels of CO2, we (mankind) will be creating global warming. I mean, do you have to be a rocket scientist to see the connection?

I'll give you a pass on the name calling.
1. CO2 and Warming are tied at the hip, no matter waht the cause. Many sources feel the CO2 rises is after the fact and can be graphed as such. Said another way, when the temperature rises this causes CO2 levels to rise after the fact. I'd urge you to check it out here Link

WE SAY: Temperature and C02 are bound together. When one goes up, the other will follow. In prehistory temperatures often started rising 800 years before levels of the gas, and Gore evades this point. But it is irrelevant to what is happening now, because for the first time ever enormous amounts of extra C02 are being released.

A rocket scientist would be open to looking at this closer without jumping to conclusions.

More to BluegrassRevolutionary

I have done my best in this tread and others like it to dispel the myth of the medieval warming period. This period is also known as the Little Climactic Optimum. The problem with the idea of the MWP is that it only takes into account temperature records present in Europe. You see, when determining global temperature levels it is necessary to use temperature data from many sources on the planet. Essentially, the data set is too small to make any conclusions. However, luckily scientists do have a more accurate prediction about the global temperature during medieval times. By taking ice core readings and doing tree ring studies on a global scale, we know that the global temperature during medieval times were comparable to those present in the early to mid 20th century and thus, less than they are today. Essentially, the idea of a medieval warming period is a FARCE and should not be believed.

Thanks for the clarification. Consider the issue dispelled. You should also notify the many authors of books concerning the Medieval Warming Period, the Vikings who clearly benefited from the warming period, and all other parties who clearly benefited from this warming period. Oh, and let's not forget the historians who have been apparently wrong to date.

Also, could you respond to and summarily disprove the "Little Ice Age"? I'll alert the publishers for you.

Originally posted by Marmota monax ::Mars is warming too, as is Pluto, yet to date, no humans have been found at these locations ::

::This idea is quite controversial and has little data to support it. Again here, given that we have only recently had the ability to gauge the temperature of other planets in our solar system and lack an ability to gauge historical temperatures, we really have no idea about the cyclical nature of their temperatures (unlike our own planet)::

On rounds this morning the Doctor proclaimed : "The patient in room 9 has the same symptoms as the patient in the bed next to him. All the tests to date are very similar. He may follow a similar progression of the disease process. Wait, let's not even consider that, cancel all testing, it's not worth further consideration, and while you are at it discharge the patient."

Follow?

Your attacks seem to be centered around the premise that skeptics such as myself are somehow uninformed or do not qualify to have an opinion other than yours. Maybe (conjecture here) this is in an effort to support the "Green Movement".

Surprisingly, I once was fully on board for man made global warming, but after reading a few books, spending some time on the web researching and watching the avalanche of scientists who once supported global warming voluntarily abandon ship, I became a skeptic.

I also heat my house 70% with solar heat, drive 2 very economical vehicles and support the "Green Movement" weekly with my hard earned money.

The global warming debate will continue, even after your declaration of the issue being closed.

Lastly, Mr. Gore seems to be heavily invested "financially" in carbon trading, so I am not convinced he can speak on the topic objectively.

Never stops amazing me how people still think man is totally responsible for global warming lol.