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.

 

Undeniable 10 Evidence's of Global Warming

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   


Undeniable 10 Evidence's of Global Warming Now, it is time to provide the evidence of man made global warming, Scientific American has compiled the list of the top ten places in the world affected by global warming. 1.Darfur, Sudan- Until the rains failed in Darfur, the region's pastoralists lived amicably with the settled farmers. But with the land crippled by a decades-long drought, the region was no longer able to support both. Farmers began to fence off their fields, and clashes broke out between sedentary and nomadic tribes. The reason- So what caused the rains to fail? When climate scientists studied the drought, they discovered that rising temperatures in the tropical and southern oceans had combined with cooling in the North Atlantic to disrupt the African monsoons. The roots of the drying in Darfur lay in changes to the global climate....................


And how much of this is due to the ugly little secret that no one wants to talk about because the blood and lives of these people are on too many hands? Take at look at who and what is really behind the tragedy of Darfur and the Sudan. The real reason why Africa has lost so much of its fertile tropical land is due to the building of man made dams which destroy lands, culture, lives and futures. Just another case where one country takes what it wants at the expense and the life of others.

www.sudantribune.com...




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marmota monax

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.


Wait, how did you spell that G-O-O-G-L-E. Cool I will have to check that out.

Look, I agree that Malaria is a growing worldwide epidemic and solutions need to be found. However, DDT, though effective, is extremely harmful to bird populations. The Time Magazine article you sited did say that DDT was safe for humans, something to my knowledge that has never been in debate. However, it neglected to mention DDT's real danger, it could lead to the extinction of every bird species on the planet.

Essentially you are saying that, instead of correcting the root cause of Malaria expansion, Global Warming, we should attack one of the symptoms of GW by implementing the use of a toxic chemical that could do irreparable harm to our environment. Your "solution" would at best only substitute one problem for another.


Originally posted by Marmota monax
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?


I really don't see how the OP's post was "diversionary." What was it try to divert your attention to or away from?

Essentially, the OP's post stated that as temperatures rise, mosquito populations will be able to thrive in cooler areas not accustomed to having them. As far as what it has to do with the spread of malaria in Italy, Italy is one of the those countries that is not accustomed to having large populations of malaria carrying mosquitoes due to its cooler climate. However, again, as the temperature in Italy rises, so too will the mosquito population, thus increasing malaria infections.


Originally posted by Marmota monax
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


Sorry, I did not know that calling a position to which you prescribe naive was the same as calling you naive.

Look, this is where logic comes in. Because the rises in temperature and C02 levels occur in close proximity to each other, some may have a difficulty in determining which comes first. However, when logic is applied the question is easily answered.

By examining each scenario by itself, one should realize that there is no logical reason why a rise in temperature should result in a rise in CO2 levels. However, logic would dictate that a rise in CO2 levels, a greenhouse gas, should result in a rise in temperature levels.


Originally posted by Marmota monax
A rocket scientist would be open to looking at this closer without jumping to conclusions.


Oh believe me, I have been "looking" at this issue for a long time and in no way jumped to a conclusion. Also, I would like nothing more than to be able to believe that GW is occurring due to some cyclical processes on our planet. This would me that I and our species could continue business as usual until the relatively cheap oil runs out. However, the facts and logic just do not support this conclusion.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marmota monax
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.


Your welcome, I only wish you had taken the clarification more seriously. By the way, what to Viking benefits and historians have to do with whether or not the Medieval Warming Period has any bearing on the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate? I mean, in no way did I say that the warming of Europe during medieval time did not benefit the Vikings. Nor did anything I said in any way discount the opinions of any historian.

I simply showed that the MWP that occurred in Europe was but a subset of the data needed to make conclusions about global temperatures. I also stated statedthat more accurate and encompassing data shows that the global temperatures during the MWP were comparable to temperatures of the early 20th century and thus, less than those of today.

And why would I want to disprove the Little Ice Age? However, if you somehow were to imply that the LIA had debunked Anthropogenic Global Warming, that I would be happy to disprove.


Originally posted by Marmota monax

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



Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
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.


Yeah I follow your analogy. However, it is not a very good one. You see, it would be more accurate if your doctor had a complete chart on the first patient and only knew that the second patient shared a fever with that of the first and had no further information about the second patient.

Do you follow?

You see, we posses huge amounts of data about planet earth and know that it is warming beyond its measurable cyclical pattern and range. However, we only think that other planets may be rising in temperature but know nothing about the cyclical nature of these temperature rises or their historical ranges. I appreciate your attempt to simplify the issue for me with your analogy, however I fully understand this issue and require no simplification.

No, I do not think that skeptics such as yourself are uninformed, I think that you have been misinformed by the huge propaganda machine fueled by the profits of some of the planets worst polluters.

Well, I am glad to hear that you are, despite your disbelief in AGW, acting in a responsible way with regards to the issue. And you are right, no matter how hard I try, there is no way that I will be able to reach the tens of millions of people who discount Anthropogenic Global Warming. Heck, as you have shown, even if I were able to reach them all, some would still resist in changing their beliefs. But, no worries, I don't mind trying, I feel it is the least I can do.

And by the way, while you are discounting Al Gore's objectivity about this issue due to his investment in carbon trading, you might as well also discount Warren Buffets insights about the economy due to his heavy investments in the stock market.

Just because someone has an eye to the future and positions themselves financially to take advantage of impending events, it does not mean that you should not listen to their predictions.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Essentially, the OP's post stated that as temperatures rise, mosquito populations will be able to thrive in cooler areas not accustomed to having them. As far as what it has to do with the spread of malaria in Italy, Italy is one of the those countries that is not accustomed to having large populations of malaria carrying mosquitoes due to its cooler climate. However, again, as the temperature in Italy rises, so too will the mosquito population, thus increasing malaria infections.


this misconception is a result of selective teaching (school censorship). Malaria does not require warm temperatures around the year, it requires a host, which survives the seasons.

www.itg.be...


Many lay people regard malaria as a purely tropical disease. However, the distribution of malaria used to be world-wide. Today, it still occurs in some 100 countries. The situation varies from region to region. Until 1938 there was still P. vivax malaria ("polderkoorts") in Belgium, and in the Netherlands as late as 1958, although there was an unexplained (possibly autochtonous) case of P. malariae infection in a child in Zealand in 1969. The WHO declared the Netherlands officially malaria-free only in 1970.


that's not to say that a warmer climate wouldn't facilitate the spread, but it's not a clear-cut relationship. it should be obvious that human and insect hosts are both required for the plasmodium's life cycle, therefore reliably treating people will go a long way towards maintaining a malraia free status.... provided resistances don't develop and aren't introduced by tourists.

one more tidbit:

P. vivax has the widest distribution area (previously as far as London, Norway, Denmark, New York, southern Canada and even Siberia


if it can be found in Southern Canada for crying out loud, climate has got to be a secondary consideration.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


We know that malaria is spreading, and is growing in areas away from the tropics, and it is a different subject altogether, it is the genetic mutation of the virus, which has gained the capacity to reproduce in non-tropic conditions, so, the data provided earlier was based on the years of initial research. And we humans are forced to tackle new things every day!

Just to quote an example, a similar case can be seen with the tuberculosis virus, which seems to have gained resistance to the medicines for treating it.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


While I agree that there may be a cycle the planet is going through, I strongly believe that mankind is making things worse by polluting and deforesting the planet.


Pollution is bad, 100% with you on that.

Deforestation without replacing it, is bad 100% with you on that.

Human caused Global Warming via CO2, I am afraid I am not
with you on that due to the scientists in the show ...
The Great Global Warming Swindle...

As mentioned in the above movie a serious outbreak of malaria
occurred in russia, it is not a new event.

10 million malaria cases in russia in 1921

The planet did get warmer for awhile there, no doubt about it.

But as they say in the afore mentioned movie, the Holocene maximum
was warmer than it is now and that is long long ago.

As they say in the movie the temperature goes up, and then
8 centuries later the CO2 goes up.

Al gore decided not to mention that part.

The Sun and Cosmic radiation have more to do with our surface
temperature than we do.

I think we need to get off fossil fuels 100%, and I think we need to
restore forests, and return to organic food.

I think the permaculture model is the way to go.

Sustainability is the way to go.

Recycling should be implemented on resources that are not renewable.

I seriously doubt this will happen til we have a major problem
starring us in the face because we are run by lawyers not engineers.

Good Luck to you all !



[edit on 2-2-2009 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


Look, I accept that the sun and other factors are involved in this. But with the exception of the sun, other factors have only minimal influence on our climate. And our sun though reaching solar maximum in two years, is not showing much activity. What do you say about that?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
5. Great Barrier Reef, Australia-

The carbon-di-oxide released into the atmosphere, gets absorbed in the sea water and reducing the Ph, thus increasing its acidity.


The first to feel the impact are the creatures of the sea that use calcium carbonate to form their shells and exoskeletons. The acidic (or actually less alkaline) water wears away at crabs, mollusks and sea snails. Coral reefs face a double whammy as the changing ocean chemistry adds to the stress of unusually warm water. Australia's Great Barrier Reef lost an estimated 10 percent of its coral to mass bleaching in 1998 and 2002.


The reason-


we've added enough carbon to shift the pH of the world's waters from 8.2 to 8.1.



A little bit about the reef
It is not 1 continuous reef, in fact it is composed of over 2,900 individual reefs
and 900 islands stretching for 2,600 kilometres or 1,600 miles over an area of approximately 344,400 square kilometres or 133,000 sq miles
The reef comes into the mailand itself in points and then again in other areas it is a number of miles off shore.
I worked on the reef for 15 years and lived by it and travelled to it since I was a boy, I also worked with a gentleman who had worked on the reef for over 40 years.
In all that time, not once was any person working in the area approached by any researchers about the reef from observations that any would have observed a chyange over the years that may assist them in their research.

We even had people painting numbers on the back of green turtles doing research, the information it took them 12 months to research I was able to tell them in 20 minutes about the habit of the turtles and the age of them. we could even tell them at what time of day they would find particular turtles.
But again we wern't approached as we where not scientists.
Now this little theory of 10% of the reef bleaching was an estimate, they never took into account rainfall for that year and they didn't factor in crown of thorn starfish destruction of the reef those particular years.
Rainfall is important as fresh water sits on the surface and the longer coral is exposed to fresh water the greater the chance of it bleaching or dying.
Coral can live for up to 3 months in the bleached stage before it dies.
It bleaches because the algae ( zooxanthellae) that lives a symbiotic life with the coral abandons the coral when fresh water is present , the algae feeds the coral as well as gives the coral its color, when the algae goes the coral reverts back to its natural color which is white.
now crown of thorn starfish feed upon the coral polyps and when they have fed in a particular area the coral skeleton remains giving it again that bleached appearance.
The PH level theory is rubbish as there was still healthy corals in the same area as the bleached corals.
Most research comes from people who only come out on a calm day as they usually got sea sick if even a hint of a breeze was present.
I would take most of the research on the reef with a grain of salt, the experts could not tell the difference between crown of thorn infestation and bleaching as there was no evidence of the sarfish during daylight hours.
I personally witnessed a coral that was brown in color go through bleaching and 2 months later the same coral was blue due to the blue zooxanthellae taking up residence in the particular coral.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


i think i've covered that on page 4

www.abovetopsecret.com...

falling pH is just one mechanism which can harm corals, so i'll ask again: would you outlaw sunscreen containing harmful additives along with a mandated CO2 reduction?

if not, why not?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


I don't wear sun screen and never will,
most sun screens float on the surface of the water and wouldn't come into contact with the coral unless the tide is low, however people touching the corals in general as well as standing on them was the bane of my exsistence when working on the reef, constanty telling people to get off it, don't touch it and put it down.
There are better ways than sun screen any way, a sun smart swimming suit for example covers the body as well as giving protection from jelly fish stings.
Sun block doesn't give protection against jelly fish.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by munkey66]
so i'll ask again: would you outlaw sunscreen containing harmful additives along with a mandated CO2 reduction?

no, because I don't believe in the whole Co2 scam

[edit on 2-2-2009 by munkey66]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 

Dear Peacejet,

Malaria is caused by a Plasmodium (falciparum) NOT a virus.
Tuberculosis is caused by a Bacterium NOT a virus.

Viruses require hosts to reproduce as they cannot do this independently. So does the plasmodium falciparum responsible for Malaria, this does not make it a virus. The content of it's DNA or RNA for that matter does that.

Hope that clears that up.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
Now, it is time to provide the evidence of man made global warming, Scientific American has compiled the list of the top ten places in the world affected by global warming.

...........................

5. Great Barrier Reef, Australia-

The carbon-di-oxide released into the atmosphere, gets absorbed in the sea water and reducing the Ph, thus increasing its acidity.


The first to feel the impact are the creatures of the sea that use calcium carbonate to form their shells and exoskeletons. The acidic (or actually less alkaline) water wears away at crabs, mollusks and sea snails. Coral reefs face a double whammy as the changing ocean chemistry adds to the stress of unusually warm water. Australia's Great Barrier Reef lost an estimated 10 percent of its coral to mass bleaching in 1998 and 2002.


The reason-


we've added enough carbon to shift the pH of the world's waters from 8.2 to 8.1.



Scratch another overblown warmist scare and place it on the trash heap.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Headed for a "year without a summer?"
__________________



10 Jun 09 - AccuWeather's Joe Bastardi talks of the "colder-than-normal weather across the northern tier of the country," says reader Charles Patrick. Bastardi also concludes that "areas from the northern Plains into the Northeast will have a "year without a summer."

"The last time this happened was the Tamboro eruption in 1815 followed by a year without a summer in 1816," says Patrick. "A time US locals from Virginia to Maine called "Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death."

Examples: "...In May 1816,[4] however, frost killed off most of the crops that had been planted, and in June two large snowstorms in eastern Canada and New England resulted in many human deaths. Nearly a foot (30 cm) of snow was observed in Quebec City in early June, with consequent additional loss of crops-most summer growing plants have cell walls which rupture in a mild frost, let alone a snowstorm coating the soils. The result was widespread localized famines, and further deaths from those who, in a hunger-weakened state, then succumbed to disease. ...In the ensuing bitter winter of 1817, when the thermometer dropped to -26°F (-32 °C), the waters of New York's Upper Bay froze so hard that horse-drawn sleighs were driven across Buttermilk Channel from Brooklyn to Governors Island.[6] The effects were widespread and lasted beyond the winter. In eastern Switzerland, the summers of 1816 and 1817 were so cool that an ice dam formed below a tongue of the Giétroz glacier high in the Val de Bagnes; in spite of the efforts of the engineer Ignaz Venetz to drain the growing lake, the ice dam collapsed catastrophically in June 1818.[7]"

"Granted, the problem went away within a couple years, but there's no volcano this time - just the sun which isn't going anywhere.

"If the sun remains dormant as it has," Patrick ends, "the summers of 2010-2012 should prove very interesting."

See accuweather article:
www.accuweather.co...ler...=0&zipChg=1&a mp;article=9

#

Like November in Sweden - 10 Jun 09 - Email from a reader in Stockholm
Dear Robert,
Hello from a very damp, grey and cold Stockholm. It is like November outside. If this lasts much longer the trees will give up for the year and start dropping their leaves and going back to sleep. Never did believe in Global Warming! Total fraud! It went down to 2.9C overnight during last weekend which is way, way down on normal this time of year when it barely gets dark for a couple of hours at night.

I noticed the following link on the BBC web page. It is interesting to see how they cannot explore the science but are instead trying to tilt the blame for whatever may happening to man-made CO2 emissions.
www.bbc.co.uk...

Scroll down to the heading "The Return of the Ice Age"

Also take a look at the section "Magnetic Pole Reversal"

My bet is that, having got caught out, they will start slowly changing tack so that they can still sting us with their carbon taxes.

Keep up the great work!
Robin


#

Canadian frosts most widespread in recent memory - 9 Jun 09 - The frosts that blanketed Western Canada last week are the most widespread in Manitoba are the worst in memory for their frequency and area covered, said Derwyn Hammond, the province's senior agronomy specialist for the Canola Council.

In Saskatchewan, the frosts were the worst in five years. Some farmers have already reseeded their canola, a Canadian variant of rapeseed.

In Alberta, the canola crop is two to three weeks behind schedule, while Western Canada wheat and barley crops are an estimated 10 days behind.
See: www.reuters.com...
Thanks to Jim Stoffaire, Steven Woodcock, Benjamin Napier and Dave Johnson for this link



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join