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.

 

Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
How sad!
Link to thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yesterday the EPA issued a "finding" that Carbon dioxide is a pollutant harmful to human health.

Stop breathing, please!

They now have "rulemaking" authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act and a recent Supreme Court decision that EPA must determine whether our exhalations are pollutants that need to be regulated.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 26-3-2009 by jdub297]




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Styki

Computer models fairly accurately predict the weather everyday. I wouldn't be so quick to disregard the information that they give.

My weather is predicted with about an 80% accuracy on general conditions, and a temperature accuracy of +/- 10°F for the next 2 days. When looking at a 5-day forecast, the accuracy drops to about 70% for general conditions and +/- 15°F for temperature. I don't pay much attention to the 10-day forecast, since the general accuracy is sometimes less than 50%.

Interpolating this accuracy rate, that means that a forecast of a 5°F temperature increase over 100 years is far from accurate.


I think an important fact that some are missing is that CO2 is not the only factor that can change the climate. There are mean factors that can change the climate and we know is that CO2 is one of them. It is vary likely that previous climate changes have been caused by other means.

We know that CO2 can absorb and re-emit a small percentage of solar radiation hitting it as heat. We also know that methane does the same thing with a large percentage of intercepted energy, as does water vapor.

We do not know what total effect this is having, nor do we know what effect other conditions may be having. A few examples:
  • Variations in total solar energy received.
  • Absorption of solar energy from urban concrete islands.
  • Tectonic/volcanic activity (and associated potential methane releases).
  • Prevailing wind shifts, possibly affected by a recent massive increase in the number of windmills.
  • Deforestation.
  • Variation in the Earth's magnetic field.
  • Another as yet unrecognized variable.

If the current 'scientific' thinking at least recognized these other possibilities, I could perhaps give it more credence. But it does not. Current theories focus only on CO2 levels at the exclusion of any other possibilities.

I do not think scientists are dumb. In all actuality I believe they are some of the brightest minds on the planet. So the question then becomes 'Why ignore everything else?' Why do we even discount ways to remove the CO2 that is supposedly endangering the planet?

Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute.

While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
Source: www.ncpa.org...

If you don't like that source, here's a whole set of pages to choose from: www.google.com... . Oh, and don't forget that when our leaders talk about controlling the output of CO2, they specifically exclude the two fastest-growing, lowest-technology (and therefore most polluting) economies on the planet; China and India are both excluded specifically from Kyoto.

The only plausible answer to this simple question of 'why?' would have to be that there is a reason CO2 is being specifically targeted to the exclusion of every other potential heating source. From the article above, the reason is pretty much spelled out plainly: someone doesn't want us burning fossil fuels. Applying the same 'why?' to this situation, one can surmise that perhaps it is the nitrates and sulfates that today's engines typically produce from gasoline and diesel use. But that doesn't make sense either. We are at present implementing new, extreme measures to make these engines cleaner-burning and more efficient. Fuel refinement itself is making technological leaps and bounds to remove sulfur from the fuel itself and thereby curtail the sulfates.

A closer look will show that only two compounds are unavoidable regardless of technology when fossil fuels are burned in an oxygen atmosphere: H2O (water) and CO2 (carbon dioxide). So if the aim was to stop the usage of fossil fuels, then making one of these two compounds illegal (or semi-illegal, as in tightly regulated and taxed) would effectively regulate fossil fuels. Actually, that statement is incomplete: it would control the use of organic fuels, not just fossil fuels. With the exception of hydro-electric, wind, and solar, all of our fuel sources today are organic. We are already using as much hydroelectric as we can; there are only so many rivers. Wind is being used extensively where it is practical (even to the point of wind farms suing each other for slowing the wind speeds due to the proximity of adjacent farms). Solar is being developed for large-scale applications but is still too expensive to be much of a help.

So if we have no alternate energy source ready and viable to replace fossil fuels, why would anyone wish to control it? There is only one answer that makes sense to me: someone wants to control others. I am one of those others, and so are you. I don't want someone with an apparently hidden agenda I do not know controlling my energy usage; do you?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297

Yesterday the EPA issued a "finding" that Carbon dioxide is a pollutant harmful to human health.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but could you give me a linky please? I've been pretty busy last couple of days.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


hi,

I have to thank you for a very valuable input to this thread. I really admire the volume of the informations in your posts.
thanks again.





posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Global Warming has a reverse effect on Mother Earth. It slows down the atlantic conveyor belt which will produce really cold weather in different parts of the world due to the salinity in the ocean. It a way for the Earth to counter global warming.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Here's a thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And a summary:
www.freerepublic.com...
I heard this on NPR, of all places, and found it by Googling "EPA Finding."


edit: to add links
[edit on 26-3-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297

Thanks for the link; I have that thread under observation now as well.


I also took the liberty of adding a couple more sources for confirmation. It appears that while this decision is still not going to immediately lead to regulation, it is the first step in that process and will no doubt receive plenty of good will from our ChangeMeister.

Maybe I should start a new thread in the survival forums about stocking up on air? Breathing produces CO2...

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Styki

Computer models fairly accurately predict the weather everyday. I wouldn't be so quick to disregard the information that they give.

My weather is predicted with about an 80% accuracy on general conditions, and a temperature accuracy of +/- 10°F for the next 2 days. When looking at a 5-day forecast, the accuracy drops to about 70% for general conditions and +/- 15°F for temperature. I don't pay much attention to the 10-day forecast, since the general accuracy is sometimes less than 50%.

Interpolating this accuracy rate, that means that a forecast of a 5°F temperature increase over 100 years is far from accurate.



There is a big difference between weather and climate.



The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.
What Weather Means
Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.


Which is why weather can only be predicted to an 80% accuracy.
Because of all the variables that change constantly.

but if summers are supposed to be hot and winters cold, that is climate, and that is pretty easy to predict.

When an area is not as cold as it should be or warm as it should be, that is climate change.


It should always snow in Alaska. If it stops snowing in Alaska, we wouldn't even be here to have this discussion, the climate change would be apocalyptic

But if it only snows 10 feet in AK, when it normally should be 20 feet, then you still have a climate change problem. Especially when the ecology depends on a certain amount of snowfall a year.

A few years ago, the Sonoran desert in Arizona experienced fires.
Despite the area beign very hot, it has been a deep drought for fourteen years. while it is hard to fathom a desert having drought,the desert is used to receiving 6-7 inches of rain that the desert expects to keep it thriving.
The plants are not fire resistant. There have not been fires in the desert in over ten thousand years.


But since the 1970s, areas below 3,000 feet in elevation have been invaded by nonnative grasses that are filling bare spaces in the desert and allowing blazes to spread,




Meanwhile, the faster-growing, more fire-resistant nonnative weeds that allowed fires to spread in the first place will have an easier time taking hold of the burned areas, said Daniel R. Patterson, a desert ecologist from the Center for Biological Diversity. Non-native weeds not only grow more quickly than native plants, they also suck the moisture out of the soil, making them a problem even after the fire season is over, Patterson said. "If the status quo continues, this is going to be like a runaway train.


When the desert burns, it doesn't recover.

Now that is climate change.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Global warming lol.

I had a chat with a friend who is currently stuck in 30+ inches of fresh snow in Colorado. A major blizzard and it's almost April?

I'm happy to be currently in the south, Alabama in fact, though there are warnings of thunderstorms headed this way here. No snow yet!


I heard they are expecting snow in Amarillo Texas as well.

It's climate change, not global warming stupid!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox

There is a big difference between weather and climate.

And it only took about 12 months to come up with that explanation. At least, that's the time frame I saw from the first complaint I noticed concerning weather predictability and the response you just gave.

I guess Mr. Gore's advisors weren't expecting that concern to be voiced. Otherwise they would already have had an answer ready.


Which is why weather can only be predicted to an 80% accuracy.
Because of all the variables that change constantly.

OK, for sake of argument, I will temporarily concede to this. Climate is different from weather due to the time constant of the two being different. Sure.

I will completely concede that the thing which makes weather so different is indeed the number and complexity of the variables involved.

But since the only difference between weather and climate is the time factor, is it not true that climate = weather over a longer time? And isn't it true that, since we live in a causal universe, the climate would be the sum of weather over time?

That means that climate by definition is subject to the same variables that make weather so hard to predict, only averaged over time. Thus, no weather observations can be extrapolated to give an accurate climate forecast unless a sufficient length of observation is recorded and analyzed. In order to provide a baseline for this analysis, we would need an initial starting point which showed the global climate in a stable configuration for enough time to establish said baseline. What period of time are we using to set this baseline?


It should always snow in Alaska. If it stops snowing in Alaska, we wouldn't even be here to have this discussion, the climate change would be apocalyptic

I especially would like to know where this baseline statement came from. As I understand it, Alaska experiences mild temperature during the summer months (as compared to hot temperatures here in the Southeast US). Thus Alaska is still colder than more southerly areas, but not frozen 12 months out of the year. Perhaps you are thinking about areas in the far north of Alaska?


A few years ago, the Sonoran desert in Arizona experienced fires.

I remember that. I was driving a truck then, and of course the fires received regular reports in the industry. I even saw the smoke from some of them.


When the desert burns, it doesn't recover.

Now that is climate change.

This may be hard for you to believe, but I drove through some of those burned out areas long after the fires. They had desert plants growing in them! They were not vast expanses of ash! The desert recovered!

I guess no one bothered to tell the native plants that they should not have survived as seeds (which are for the most part fire-resistant or at least heat-resistant) to grow after the fires were gone. Ironically enough, the non-native plants were not as able to handle the heat extremes in the fires and mostly died off to allow the native plants to regrow unhindered. And even stranger, Al gore never even went out to the desert; I can only assume he used some sort of psycho-kinetic powers to save it.


Yeah, that's climate. It recovers. Thanks for making that point for us.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
the fallacies of global warming are the biggest joke being played on the pubic.

fallacy number ONE is that the desertification of the planet.

as the world warms the deserts will not spread but will disappear.

A prime example is the Calif desert. during the Cenozoic epoch the world wide temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees warmer and at that time death valley was a large fresh water lake called lake Manly.and the mountains around death valley were lush forests.
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...

Only during the Pleistocene ice age to now has the deserts of california formed and lake Manly dried out

The colder the planet is the less rainfall there is.

This is due to the reduced evaporation rates over the oceans as the temperatures drop.

A warmer planet will lead to increasing forest and a recovery of the great basin lakes.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.matr.net...
www.thegreatstory.com...

Who says a warmer planet is a bad thing. man evolved in a warmer planet period and was able to adapt to the cooling if the planet.

It would NOT hurt man because we have and will adapt to anything that would happen to the climate.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst
Global Warming has a reverse effect on Mother Earth. It slows down the atlantic conveyor belt which will produce really cold weather in different parts of the world due to the salinity in the ocean. It a way for the Earth to counter global warming.



What goes up must come down. If we go up higher we fall taht mucho farther. How long do I have to plant an orange tree in Massachutes?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Very true. Also, a lot of moisture gets locked into glaciers when the temperature drops. Drought is a sign of colder temperatures, not warmer. That is why all signs point towards an ice age coming.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

They had desert plants growing in them! They were not vast expanses of ash! The desert recovered!


reread my post redneck. there is a big difference between native plants and invasive species.

The average saguaro cactus is 75 years old before it sprouts its first arm. Desert plants grow very very slowly for obvious reasons.

what happened is that since those plants were burned, plants that don't even belong in the region were allowed to take root. you are not seeing a desert landscape you are seeing a new landscape.

I was living there when those fires happened. So I am quite familiar with it. In fact, those fires were so intense they actually developed unseasonal storms, because they changed the local weather phenomenon. We choked on our way to work from the smoke much futher to the south it was so intense, and the area had a strange haze to it.

As for the Ak comment I was just trying to come up with a simple analogy. It wasn't meant as a fact. But that is what is happening in a lot of areas. You still have weather phenomenon, but if it is out of the norm, it is still out of the norm.


BTW Redneck, I also remember when there was a slight delay in shipping because the fires crossed I-10 and no one could get through and had to be rerouted.
I always found it interesting that such a massive state had only one major road north.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox

what happened is that since those plants were burned, plants that don't even belong in the region were allowed to take root. you are not seeing a desert landscape you are seeing a new landscape.

You didn't read my post thoroughly. What I saw was the same desert, with the same plants (cactus, yucca, tumbleweeds) that had always grown there. The flora most damaged by the fires were any invasive species, which were pretty much wiped out from what I saw (I doubt they were thriving well anyway because of the arid climate).


I was living there when those fires happened. So I am quite familiar with it. In fact, those fires were so intense they actually developed unseasonal storms, because they changed the local weather phenomenon. We choked on our way to work from the smoke much futher to the south it was so intense, and the area had a strange haze to it.

I drove through a couple of times, and the smoke and haze I saw from a distance were awesome. I can only imagine living among that as opposed to driving through the edge of it.

But nostalgia aside, the point I am making to your posts is that the variations in temperature/humidity/barometric pressure/etc. that we call 'weather' (or 'climate' when summed over a time period) are the very reason those plants were non-native to begin with. Cacti grow in the desert because they can, not because they are 'supposed' to grow there. Their ability to pull deep water out of the dusty soil and store it efficiently means they, and only they, can survive in arid climates. So they survive very well with little to no competition. Tumbleweeds are seasonal, growing with wet periods and then drying up quickly and forming the rolling ball of brush you see piled up against fences along the highways. As these balls roll along with the wind, they scatter seeds far and wide, hopefully in better and better areas to grow. Like the cacti, they have ways to take advantage of the weather conditions in the desert efficiently, and therefore out-thrive other species and become the dominant flora. Yucca also has an advantage, although I admit I am not as up on it's uniqueness enough to say much about it.

Bottom line is that we won't automatically destroy the environment simply by introducing a plant into it. Chances are the very reason that plant hasn't already been growing there is that it can't, so any 'invasion' will be short-lived and futile. Nature is much more resilient than you think it is.

If you live in the desert, surely you have seen the 'blooming desert' after a rain. That carpet of flowers and grasses is not non-native; they are native yet rare, surviving only as seeds in the dusty soil and sprouting, growing, and producing more seeds quickly after a rainstorm. Come to think of it, if my memory is working correctly, those fires came about due to an unusually wet period in which the desert was blooming for weeks constantly. I remember seeing it on two trips, one to Vegas and one to LA. That was extremely unusual for the desert to get enough water to keep it growing for so long. Could that be the 'invasion' you are speaking of?


BTW Redneck, I also remember when there was a slight delay in shipping because the fires crossed I-10 and no one could get through and had to be rerouted.
I always found it interesting that such a massive state had only one major road north.

Shipping delay? Maybe in selected areas, but nationally there was no delay I can remember. There are numerous routes around the areas that were burning, so the worst thing that could happen would be for someone to get stopped without realizing the road was closed and have to backtrack some.

I-10 ia a major artery (east-west, not north-south; there is one short northerly stretch just east of Phoenix) but there are several alternates, from taking I-8 west of Phoenix and cutting back up, to taking I-40 across, to taking US routes across the desert. There's not a lot of truck route restrictions in AZ (or in NM for that matter).

California has plenty when you get that far, though. See what excessive regulation can cause?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Of course its a buch of nonsense. The sun is in a quite period. I wonder how long it will take the enviro loons to realize this? I guess some have already adopted the phrase "global climate change" instead of "global warming." Of course there is climate change, it happens four times a year here, it's called seasons!!
OBTW we were running into the 80's last week and guess what is happening tonight and tomorrow? 3"-10" of freaking snow! Screwing up my spring fishing....


Time to move on to another subject, this one is dead like it or not.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
its two years and the cooling weve seen is a result of a weakned magnetosphere.
its the weakest its been since records begand.
the weaker it is the lower the global temperature.

thus the current cooling caused by magnetosphere weakening does not indicate a lessening in the global warming phenomenon.

it only adds to the notion that global warming is being done intentionaly to destroy human civilisation.
and that there is a disininfo campaign is being done to discredit global warming and to undermine it.

no suprises it was a former nasa employee.

bunch of inept bafoons!

[edit on 27-3-2009 by welivefortheson]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by welivefortheson

Do you have any sources or research to confirm a link between the magnetosphere and the global temperatures?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   


Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening Temperatures dropping, fewer hurricanes, arctic ice growing, polar bear population up Posted: March 22, 2009 9:56 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily


I had forgotten that the source article for this debacle of a thread is the infamous WhirledNutDaily. I suppose the WhirledNutDaily is better than the Weekly World News for factual information as it were, but when it comes down to pure sexytime entertainment for dollar spent the Weekly World News blows the WhirledNutDaily out of the water. Plus they broke the Mars Face found in Antarctica under the ice and snow story so if I were the WhirledNutDaily I wouldn't rest on my laurel just yet. Neither fish wrapper can really be counted on as a source for a Grade School Report that won't be laughed at by the teacher and result in super swirlie by the tall bowl-cut haired jocks. Highlights Magazine would be a better choice.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by mandroid]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jnewell33
 


You can if you pile it high enough!


With all this QE going on, we should have enough by the time the Sun goes Super Nova on us.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join