It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study


www.google.com

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."
NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."
Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth's atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.slashdot.org

[edit on 27/1/09 by Venit]




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Well, this isn't particularly good news. Humans have done the damage and now the rest of the species on earth are going to pay the price. I have no doubt that we as a species shall survive this, but there will be blood on our hands as a result of our actions.

However, i think we still have a responsibility to reduce our emissions as best we can to reduce any extra damage. Even though we've messed up, we still have a chance to mitigate some of the damage.

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Venit
 


This is all crappola, thats all these freaks want is more money to study climate change from you and i. I hope the world does heat up, its pretty cold here.

Oh, if we cannot change it for 1000 years, they why try, why keep talking about, why not try to restore the economy instead?

C02 is not pollution, it is inert and cannot trap more heat than H2o, thats right, water vapor or clouds.

Their computer models are always wrong, they have been wrong for the last 30 years, they are lucky if the can predict the weather for next week.

We humans have done this? LOL Blood on our hands from all the animals dying? Good, then we can eat them all up...yum!



[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
We've been in the industrial age for 200 years and we've done irrevesible damage that will last us 1,000? With the enormity of the planet, and the heating of the other planets in our solar system, I can't see this being the only viable conclusion to an obviously more intricate issue. This fear mongering bull# has got to stop.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by Venit
 


This is all crappola, thats all these freaks want is more money to study climate change from you and i. I hope the world does heat up, its pretty cold here.

Oh, if we cannot change it for 1000 years, they why try, why keep talking about, why not try to restore the economy instead?

C02 is not pollution, it is inert and cannot trap more heat than H2o, thats right, water vapor or clouds.

Their computer models are always wrong, they have been wrong for the last 30 years, they are lucky if the can predict the weather for next week.

We humans have done this? LOL Blood on our hands from all the animals dying? Good, then we can eat them all up...yum!



[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]


Wrong,
Wrong,
wrong again,,,......and whatever.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
What a bunch of crockola.
Aren't they in the least embarrassed releasing these so called findings while most of the country is currently experiencing many many inches of "global warming"?

How can you trust a model that predicts what is in store for the next 1000 years yet these same models fail to show any sign of the global freezing we are witnessing today?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


ORLY? How am I wrong? Is it because your liberal teachers, liberal politicians, liberal media have you brain washed into believing all this garbage?

Where is the real science, in their computer models that they program data into? James Hanson of NASA has been caught cheating the actual numbers what, like 4 times now?

Why do satilite numbers show cooling in the upper troposhere when their models show it should be warming? Why is there more ice now in the antarctic than ever before and satilites show that the temp there is getting colder?

Humans are like tiny ants on this planet, nothing we have made can even be seen from space with the naked eye during the day. Only our lights can be seen at night.

Why dont you help clean up a river or brook or stream near your house, that is where the real pollution is. Pull out all the tires, bags or garbage and other trash from the water ways. There is no global warming and if there was, it would be great for the planet, it would make it greener, warmer and more hospitable to everyone. Plant would grow like mad with the extra Co2 in the air and rainforests would populate the earth. Isnt that what you want?

[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stinkhorn
 


Several hundred scientific studies and the vast majority of the academic community would disagree with you. Furthermore, 'liberal' has nothing to do with it. Global warming isn't a political issue, it's a planetary issue. If people would stop attributing global warming as being a liberal lie or something similar, then perhaps more people would look at the evidence for themselves.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
We do not even have conclusive data for the last 200 years let alone the last 1000. I thought every theory needed some kind of control in order to establish a basis for a conclusion. I suppose the mindless can continue to just blame the U.S. for this even though Russia welcomes global warming, in fact Russia is advocating it so the rest of their frozen tundra can thaw out and they can get at the rest of the minerals and natural resources.

Ummmm...let's not forget China or India, neither of which have any intention on doing a damn thing to slow down the effects. The climate is changing for sure, but why start pointing fingers if the world will not address the problem as a whole.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Why worry about the next 1,000 years? Hell, we will be lucky to survive the next 100. Just a matter of time before someone releases some biological warfare or detonates a few nukes.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
attention whoring at its finest.

'irreversible !'

'1000 years !'

heck, these people have come up with so many lies and were caught often enough to warrant extreme caution when it cones to this particular agenda.


hint: it's not the threat message, it's the solutions, from CFLs to biofuels and a global air tax.

the problem is these people cook their data sets in order to reach their pre-ordained conclusions

www.dailytech.com...

sure, it takes an internet surfer to locate discontinuities in ther temperature charts.. NOT.

it all started in 1990: www.abovetopsecret.com...

in fact the wamest year on record is now 1934, but nobody cares anymore, after all there's money to be made!

www.associatedcontent.com...

and

www.telegraph.co.uk...

heatwaves make headlines, cold spells don't and if a chunck of ice falls into the sea, people freak out. what exactly do you expect from a glacier? that it will pile up indefinitely? are two miles of ice not enough? the South pole is not a clear cut case anyway, because it appears to be significantly colder there than two decades ago, but take a look at the following link and you'll see that the message is hard to convey.

Antarctic Ice Shelf set to Collapse

which is for all i know a bald faced lie. the irony is that they might as well acknowledge the facts and call it an anomaly! after all, the South pole's condition is just one of countless indicators and sea level rises would still be far off, even in worst case scenarios. unfortunately, cult of global warming never was about facts, forecasts and solutions, it has always been about power. therefore, they just *have* to be right. everytime.

anything else would be considered a weakness and cast doubt upon the movement, which traps them into negating any contradicting data and resorting to ad hominem attacks, usually revolving around the theme of paid shills. the underlying mentality is one of 'you're either with, or against us'. no high road, no moderation - all or nothing.

[edit on 2009.1.27 by Long Lance]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Suspiciously round number. If they said - 800. Or - 1300. Running simulation and result is that after 1000 years it is ok - what are the chances to that? Just to prepare us that carbon tax is going to be for very long time, i guess.
Maybe somebody knows why ice shows rapid changes between high CO2 and low, and now it is thousand- years challenge?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by audas
 


ORLY? How am I wrong? Is it because your liberal teachers, liberal politicians, liberal media have you brain washed into believing all this garbage?

Where is the real science, in their computer models that they program data into? James Hanson of NASA has been caught cheating the actual numbers what, like 4 times now?

Why do satilite numbers show cooling in the upper troposhere when their models show it should be warming? Why is there more ice now in the antarctic than ever before and satilites show that the temp there is getting colder?

Humans are like tiny ants on this planet, nothing we have made can even be seen from space with the naked eye during the day. Only our lights can be seen at night.

Why dont you help clean up a river or brook or stream near your house, that is where the real pollution is. Pull out all the tires, bags or garbage and other trash from the water ways. There is no global warming and if there was, it would be great for the planet, it would make it greener, warmer and more hospitable to everyone. Plant would grow like mad with the extra Co2 in the air and rainforests would populate the earth. Isnt that what you want?

[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]


Umm, except for the fact that an area the size of California is about to break off the Antarctica, with the Larson A and Larson B ice shelves BOTH breaking off in the past 5 years, along with the 10 of the past 11 years being the hottest on record - oops.

Further there is now less glacier coverage than at any stage during the last 100,000 years (this is done through ice samples). The glaciers are what are known as the Third Pole representing enormous amounts of water supporting hundreds of millions.

There is no liberal conspiracy - rather there is IS an acknowledged and fully admitted to conspiracy from Big Oil via the Lavosier Group en.wikipedia.org... - all major oil companies have now acknowledged this to have been damaging and wrong and accept Global Warming and Climate Change as a real man made phenomenon.

The damage done through their deliberate attempts to spread disinformation have had lasting effects primarily in the misconception that there is any doubt about the reality of global warming. Something for which Exxon, Mobil, BP, Shell, and many others have PUBLICLY apologised for -

Rebuttal to these admissions should be interesting ...



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


Learn a little about ice first and learn even more about antarctica and its volcanos before you spew misinformation.

You are being told liberal lies and you are believing every word of it, you say its not a liberal conspiracy? then why is it that liberals are the only ones sucking it up?

Why are politicians involved? They are idiots and are looking to make a buck by taxing the hell out us.

The ocean have actually cooled by 1 degree and your brilliant scientitst cannot figure out why or how, they all believe the ocean should be warmer, thats what their models tell them. Have people really become this stupid to trust a machine over verifiable facts?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by Venit
 


This is all crappola, thats all these freaks want is more money to study climate change from you and i. I hope the world does heat up, its pretty cold here.

Oh, if we cannot change it for 1000 years, they why try, why keep talking about, why not try to restore the economy instead?

C02 is not pollution, it is inert and cannot trap more heat than H2o, thats right, water vapor or clouds.

Their computer models are always wrong, they have been wrong for the last 30 years, they are lucky if the can predict the weather for next week.

We humans have done this? LOL Blood on our hands from all the animals dying? Good, then we can eat them all up...yum!



[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]


Wrong,
Wrong,
wrong again,,,......and whatever.


and whatever. Now there's a 'brilliant' response that contributes so much to this thread.

It's your opinion only, based on no facts whatsoever.

A thousand years is a long time. We could spend trillions of dollars chasing the eco-nazis mirage only to find out that there's nothing humans can do to affect the outcome because they didn't cause it. Or a hundred years from now some scientist might stumble upon a "cure" for the problem. Or the world might really end in 2012, so what's the point?

You must have had an open mind at one point when they talked you into believing all the global warming hype. What has happened to close it since?


[edit on 1/27/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
[
You must have had an open mind at one point when they talked you into believing all the global warming hype. What has happened to close it since?



i presume that once your head is filled with ideology, there's no longer enough room to acommodate anything else.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I've strayed away from the whole "global warming" argument, BOTH sides have been lying through their teeth, and there's no way for the real scientists to get the truth heard anymore, so I've given up on that.


What I do know is that we are going through a climate shift. Warming or not, the zones are moving and the currents are changing.
Places we expect to be warm and dry, can become cold and wet.
Places we expect to be forests, can become deserts, and vice versa.

Great Britain has got quite a bit in store for them once the currents shift... the only reason they stay warm enough to provide for themselves is because of their warm current.

Species will go extinct as access to food supplies dwindle... and the farmlands are going to have to be completely re-located, often outside of the countries that originally housed them, into countries that never expected to be capable of heavy farming.

It should be interesting times.



As for global warming, don't bother arguing it. Both sides are lying so hard now, there's no real discussion to it any more. I think that may have been intentional... discredit the entire argument, rather than just one side, so that nobody can take it seriously.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by Venit

Several hundred scientific studies and the vast majority of the academic community would disagree with you. Furthermore, 'liberal' has nothing to do with it. Global warming isn't a political issue, it's a planetary issue. If people would stop attributing global warming as being a liberal lie or something similar, then perhaps more people would look at the evidence for themselves.


NO!

Anthropogenic "global warming" is not agreed upon by any 'vast majority' except on some ATS threads.

The story you quote is an inaccurate snippet from a third party of a second party reporting on a conference call with Susan Solomon of the NOAA Earth Systems Research "Global Monitoring" division.

See the url:
www.esrl.noaa.gov...

ESRL/GMD's mission:


GMD's mission is to observe and understand, through accurate, long-term records of atmospheric gases, aerosol particles, and solar radiation, the Earth's atmospheric system controlling climate forcing, ozone depletion and baseline air quality, in order to develop products that will advance global and regional environmental information and services.

(emphasis added)


Some Bio on Susan Solomon:

NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory All Funding $ 2

Grants (Principal Investigator)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants for which Susan Solomon acted as the principal investigator (includes data since 1992)
Title/Granting Organization, Fiscal Years, Total Funding,
Ultraviolet And Visible Spectroscopy
At Mcmurdo Station Office of Polar Programs 1990 $ 1

Visible Spectroscopy At Mcmurdo Station,
Antarctica Office of Polar Programs 1987 $ 1


Solomon worked extensively on ozone depletion on the late ‘80s and early ‘90s.

She has recognized that climate change is more complex than merely CO2 emissions, and is in fact largely a natural, long-term process:


With global warming, you have to talk about clouds on a global basis; tropospheric water vapor on a global basis—a lot of things that are not easy to measure and have to be done globally, not locally. You just can't do that quickly because it is a global problem.

(emphasis added)
...


What I did for the next few years was to show, in a manner somewhat similar to the polar stratospheric clouds, that other kinds of surfaces could also enhance ozone depletion at lower latitudes. We were able to show, for instance that when El Chichon went off in 1981 and then Pinatubo in the 1990s, both had significant effects on the ups and downs of ozone depletion. Pinatubo, in particular, had a measurable effect in the northern mid-latitude depletion via chlorine chemistry on the volcanic particle surfaces in the stratosphere. That was a pretty major finding and really helped to explain why, at that time of history, the ozone in our latitudes looked the way it did.




I have also done some work on the issue of gases other than carbon dioxide that could contribute to global warming. This has been fascinating from the chemistry point of view. Among other things, one question my colleagues and I have probed is the role of perfluorinated chemicals like CF4, SF6, and others. There’s not a lot of that stuff in the atmosphere today, so I’m not saying they are significant contributors to today’s global warming. But we’ve shown that these molecules live for literally thousands of years—they may as well be immortal—and they are potent absorbers of infrared light, hence greenhouse gases. A molecule that can outlast the pyramids of Egypt might be one to think about venting to the atmosphere especially carefully.



As we think about the possibility of future climate change, I think it’s important to think about chemistry, and about the lifetimes of the things that could contribute to the climate. Carbon dioxide lives about 150 years in the atmosphere, so that fact should be part of a science-based risk assessment. Climate change is a complex problem, and this kind of scientific information is one piece of the problem.

(emphasis added) (So, where did she/they get '1,000 years?')

ScienceWatch.com:
archive.sciencewatch.com...

AGW is a marketing tool for "carbon credits," among other things, which only yesterday were reported NOT to be working in major programs such as the China Xiaxoia dam and Germay's coal-fired power plant "swaps," and are in fact making the problem worse by subsidizing developers of CO2-emitting generators with no concomittant reduction in third-world emissions!

Man cannot change the weather!

We pollute like no one else, but that is localized, and can be directly and relatively inexpensively corrected.

Mankind needs to focus on alternative energy because we are running out of carbon-based fuels; not because politicians and corporations want to foist some tax or other remedy on workers, consumers, farmers and their children/grandchildren.

Who do you think ultimately pays for the carbon remediation? The sequestration? The "tax/credits/caps/swaps?"

Why don't you and everyone of the other ATS AGW advocates begin a pool of money to contribute to buy credits? Trade swaps?

Go for it. I will not. Ever.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Venit
 


Since when is "google" a source. I've seen the Agence France Press article, and the WaPo, and several others who misquoted the story to run with it.

Read what other scientists, even Solomon's colleagues say. Did you know she's one of the lead IPCC authors of the flawed, speculative and largely discredited reports put out by Hansen, the UN and their ilk?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


don't worry the pro AGW'ers are deaf on that ear, only repeat the same thing over again


650 dissenters in the UN alone:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

30k try to file a class action suit against Gore's extortion scheme:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but heck if it works for them, why can't i repost the same thing in every GW thread that i can find? so there!

[edit on 2009.1.27 by Long Lance]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join