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.

 

Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Premature triumphalism on your part. Big style.


Originally posted by mirageofdeceit


Originally posted by pause4thought

The shelf has been retreating since the 1990s, but scientists say this is the first time it has lost one of the connections that keeps it in place.


Well they KNOW it has been retreating for DECADES (and longer than that too!!), so WHY are they soooo surprised at this????? Ice doesn't choose to melt just because it feels like it.

It's a BS argument.

On the contrary, whether or not they were surprised is absolutely irrelevant. That's one of the lamest straw man arguments I've ever seen. The fact it has been retreating for decades just strengthens the case for GW!


Another thing massively over looked is the drop after 1500. WHY?

Nothing worthy of caps lock, that's for sure. It's clearly within the range of the obvious natural cyclical pattern evident prior to the late 18th century.


In your CO2 graph, it shows in the 1500s CO2 at ~280 ppm, and in the last data plot ~340. Over 500 YEARS (half a MILLENNIA!) it only rose 60 ppm, or 21% compared with the 1500 levels. In 500 YEARS????

In a complex system it's about tipping points, not absolutes. I'm sorry to say you don't know what you're talking about.


In 1750 CO2 levels are recorded as being at the same levels as in 1500. Between 1750 and 2000 (250 YEARS), CO2 steadily rose. THIS PRE-DATES THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION BY AT LEAST 100 YEARS.

WRONG. Definition of the Industrial Revolution from Yale University:


The changes that occurred during this period (1760-1850), in fact, occurred gradually. The year 1760 is generally accepted as the “eve” of the Industrial Revolution. In reality, this eve began more than two centuries before this date. The late 18th century and the early l9th century brought to fruition the ideas and discoveries of those who had long passed on, such as, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes and others.

Source (emphasis mine)

How wrong can you get? Let's keep looking...


What caused the very large rise after the low shortly after 1500, to 1750??? We had no industrial revolution at that time, so what caused it???

The only chart that shows data relating to pre 1750 relates to atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica. It shows a natural cyclical pattern prior to that date! Cue industrial revolution, cue unabated increase. And even though that particular chart could reasonably be interpreted as showing a natural upturn up to circa 1875, thereafter it just rockets. And if that's not a clear correlation with the widespread growth of heavy industry in the latter half of the nineteenth century I don't know what is.


Looking at your temperature chart, has anyone asked why AFTER 1940, the CO2 level DROPPED??

Look again. What the chart actually says is that there was a drop between 1945 and the mid 50s. Is it necessary to state the obvious? -Heavy industry had been heavily damaged and it took years for the devastated economies to recover. Personally I wouldn't make a meal out of such relatively minor fluctuations, though. Atmospheric CO2 depends on the interaction of a great many factors. Either way on closer inspection your argument crumbles once again.


Going on from this, INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT INCREASED MASSIVELY DURING THIS STEADY PERIOD! More cars on the road than ever, more industry, more people.... the list goes on. Yet it remained STEADY???

As I say, you are reading far too much into the graph. For a start it was not steady, but fluctuating, and secondly the scale of the variation is insufficient to form the basis of an argument. You are simply jumping to conclusions over and over again.


Here is an inconvenient truth for you to try and explain away: In the early 1970s, Europe passed a Clean Air Bill. Curious that this is exactly the same time that temperatures start rising.

Easy. Technological advances and their uptake by industry have been slow processes. Legislation takes such realities into account, pushing industries to improve as quickly as possible, but back in the 70s that was not quick in absolute terms due to the size of the challenges both in terms of technology and cost.

Nothing in your post stands up to even a cursory examination, copious use of capslock notwithstanding.



[edit to fix code]

[edit on 5/4/09 by pause4thought]




posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrVertigo
 


Some locations may be seeing temperatures lower than the warming trend would project. But that doesn't necessarily mean temperatures aren't going to continue to get warmer. Also, temperature doesn't necessarily have alot to do with problems like droughts and flash floods. That is simply the lack of water.. (flash floods being drought-ridden areas dumped on very quickly).

National Geographic this month has all kinds of pretty disturbing images. Some families in Australia have lost their farms completely and are continuing to face possible economic disaster if they can't find some kind of solution the drought. Entire lakes are completely drying up around the world, glaciers are continuing to recede at an increasing rate. One of the causes of the increase is meltwater forming lakes and then suddenly being released into and underneath the glacier forming what is basically a lubricated surface for the glacier to move on. We also have the fact that since the glaciers and ice are starting to melt due to warmer temperatures they reflect less and less solar energy back into space. That exacerbates the situation causing an increase in warming rates.

And all of this is going on when the sun is at a solar minimum in its 11 year cycle.. That might be enough to account for some of the "cooler" temperatures in some locations. There's just no way to know for sure.

We know that CO2 levels are skyrocketing right now. There are many natural causes for this and even if we are impacting our environment with relation to CO2 levels, any changes we could create would be minimal when compared to the natural CO2 increases scientists have been observing at key locations around the globe (the rainforests, the arctic tundra, greenland just as some examples).

We also know that it is only a matter of time until more antarctic ice sheets break off.

-ChriS

[edit on 6-4-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
If people were really worried about global warming, it seems like someone would start dropping iron ore powder into the ocean to cheaply reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Maybe scientists don't want to alter things as is so they can study if things are going to continue to get worse as is. I guess you could also argue that there is money to be made developing green technologies. No profit to be made dumping iron ore powder in the ocean and fixing the global warming problem cheaply.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


I do agree Kryties, how ever....

This will be the first 'natural occurance' that is manipulated with all the toxic chemicals we have introduced.

Yes, climate runs in cycles, but this cycle is going to be painfully different, because of us, being the variable!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


That was a brilliantly succinct summary of the balanced position. Star for you.

Also starred BlasteR's last post, as although I can't accept that human impact is not significant, he has emphasized the core issue: GW is a reality, and it is having an increasing impacting on humanity.

It reminds me of the opening to the 'Lord of the Rings' movie:

"The world is changing..."



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Keep fighting the good fight, P4T.

The issue is that even 5 years back the rapdily increasing melting at antarctica and greenland was not expected. We are about 100 years ahead of schedule.


One Antarctic ice shelf has quickly vanished, another is disappearing and glaciers are melting faster than anyone thought due to climate change, U.S. and British government researchers reported on Friday.

www.reuters.com...

The IPCC is well known for being very conservative in its predictions, the science is currently at the extreme end. But the Dolittle's and Delay's still spout tripe in some ideological effort to maintain political purity.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Sorry if I came off sounding like that. The fact is that the human impact (as far as CO2 levels) IS significant. What I was really saying is that we have scientifically confirmed huge increases in CO2 emissions by unknown natural causes. The University of Alaska in Fairbanks conducted tests up in the Northern Alaska tundra a few years ago and discovered an IMMENSE amount of CO2 being released naturally (much more than what they would have normally expected to see). We are also seeing an increase in CO2 levels from the rainforests. It is belived that man contributes about .28% (less than one percent) of all the world's greenhouse gases..
www.geocraft.com...

.28% might seem like a small figure but it is beyond a significant amount.. What I'm really getting at is that natural CO2 emissions seem to be trumping and growing independently of the estimated man-made percentage of greenhouse gases currently existing in our atmosphere.

When you take into account the increases of natural CO2 emissions we are currently experiencing though, the man-made .28% is quite possibly going down right now.... Just because the ratio between man-made and natural is widening, not because man-made CO2 is magically disappearing.

Here is a NOAA chart showing tested CO2 levels 2002-present.



Pretty amazing. We can compare the current CO2 levels to the levels we know existed in the distant past (for example, within air bubbles trapped in ice cores) and we know that the current increase is unprecedented (definately since the time we belive humans have existed on this planet). What we don't know is what it all means just yet, though many believe the answer is man-made CO2. The truth, though, is that Global warming is a complicated process with many different variables we may or may not be aware of scientifically.

There is so much going on at once that it complicates the scientific validation of all the contributing factors. Man-made CO2 emissions are well-known and well-researched because I belive special interest groups and environmentalists have put alot of money into that arena. What we haven't studied well enough are natural CO2 emissions. We know that the warmer conditions affect the melting of glaciers and sea-ice in Greenland and Antarctica. What we don't know for sure is how this all affects the warm ocean currents, the weather, and how this all exacerbates the already fragile situation we're in.

Not to say we aren't significantly affecting the environment. If the man-made greenhouse gas levels really are around .28%, there's no way to know how this amount would even begin to affect the planet. It might not at all. Even if that .28% was never produced it seems we would still be in a pretty bad, worsening situation because of the increase in naturally-produced CO2.

What I REALLY HATE. are people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh talking about climate change only in ways that supports their own arguments. I heard Glenn Beck's on his radio show talking about newly-discovered snake fossils a couple months ago. This snake was IMMENSE.. And scientists were saying that the only way the animal would have been able to support itself and digest its food properly is if the temperatures were much warmer in the distant when it was alive. Glenn Beck got a hairbrained idea to use this information to make the argument that temperatures are actually cooling (not getting warmer) because if the temperatures were much greater long ago then they must be much cooler today in comparison (what he saw as evidence of a cooling trend)..

What he failed to even notice is that climate change is completely normal for our planet over long periods of geologic time. All the ice ages have warming and cooling cycles too, so just because it must have been warmer in the distant past to support the aformentioned snake doesn't in any way prove we are now in a cooling period nor does it imply that to be true.. In fact, all the scientific evidence shows we are in a natural warming period in the current ice age (Also known as quaternary glaciation).

-ChriS



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
It is belived that man contributes about .28% (less than one percent) of all the world's greenhouse gases..
www.geocraft.com...


It's very wrong.

We release enough CO2 to account for twice the accumulating CO2 each year. Around half of it is taken up by carbon sinks, the rest accumulates in the atmosphere.

We are up at 27 billion tonnes emitted a year. And our emissions can account for almost all the 35% increase in CO2 from 280ppm. CO2 accounts for about 9-26% of the greenhouse effect, so a rough guesstimate would be about 27% (107ppm/387ppm) of that is due to human activity - about 2.5-7%. Some info here.

But that's just for CO2. The point is also that there are other anthro influences and that the forcing due to CO2 leads to positive feedbacks, so the effect is greater than that. Which is why a doubling of CO2 from 280-560ppm is predicted to very likely lead to 2-4.5'C warming.



[edit on 11-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Premature triumphalism on your part. Big style.


Originally posted by mirageofdeceit


Originally posted by pause4thought

The shelf has been retreating since the 1990s, but scientists say this is the first time it has lost one of the connections that keeps it in place.


Well they KNOW it has been retreating for DECADES (and longer than that too!!), so WHY are they soooo surprised at this????? Ice doesn't choose to melt just because it feels like it.

It's a BS argument.

On the contrary, whether or not they were surprised is absolutely irrelevant. That's one of the lamest straw man arguments I've ever seen. The fact it has been retreating for decades just strengthens the case for GW!

You will note I do not dispute GLOBAL WARMING. I dispute the MAN MADE element. You seem to have missed that subtlety.



Another thing massively over looked is the drop after 1500. WHY?

Nothing worthy of caps lock, that's for sure. It's clearly within the range of the obvious natural cyclical pattern evident prior to the late 18th century.

What is to say that this isn't normal, either?? Need I remind you that just a couple of decades ago, the scare was on for global COOLING?

I'm sorry you don't like CAPS. I use it for EMPHASIS. I'm not shouting (although that is usually the implication of CAPS).



In your CO2 graph, it shows in the 1500s CO2 at ~280 ppm, and in the last data plot ~340. Over 500 YEARS (half a MILLENNIA!) it only rose 60 ppm, or 21% compared with the 1500 levels. In 500 YEARS????

In a complex system it's about tipping points, not absolutes. I'm sorry to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Define "tipping point" in the context of the planet. Where is this "tipping point", exactly?

As has been demonstrated time and again, an increase in CO2 results in an increase in plant growth. Humans don't start suffering the effects of CO2 until its concentrations reach at least 20% (higher for young, healthy people).



In 1750 CO2 levels are recorded as being at the same levels as in 1500. Between 1750 and 2000 (250 YEARS), CO2 steadily rose. THIS PRE-DATES THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION BY AT LEAST 100 YEARS.

WRONG. Definition of the Industrial Revolution from Yale University:


The changes that occurred during this period (1760-1850), in fact, occurred gradually. The year 1760 is generally accepted as the “eve” of the Industrial Revolution. In reality, this eve began more than two centuries before this date. The late 18th century and the early l9th century brought to fruition the ideas and discoveries of those who had long passed on, such as, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes and others.

Source (emphasis mine)

How wrong can you get? Let's keep looking...

Thanks for the correction.



What caused the very large rise after the low shortly after 1500, to 1750??? We had no industrial revolution at that time, so what caused it???

The only chart that shows data relating to pre 1750 relates to atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica. It shows a natural cyclical pattern prior to that date! Cue industrial revolution, cue unabated increase. And even though that particular chart could reasonably be interpreted as showing a natural upturn up to circa 1875, thereafter it just rockets. And if that's not a clear correlation with the widespread growth of heavy industry in the latter half of the nineteenth century I don't know what is.

Is the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere uniform?? I'm intrgiued.




Looking at your temperature chart, has anyone asked why AFTER 1940, the CO2 level DROPPED??

Look again. What the chart actually says is that there was a drop between 1945 and the mid 50s. Is it necessary to state the obvious? -Heavy industry had been heavily damaged and it took years for the devastated economies to recover. Personally I wouldn't make a meal out of such relatively minor fluctuations, though. Atmospheric CO2 depends on the interaction of a great many factors. Either way on closer inspection your argument crumbles once again.

No it doesn't. During the war, industrial output stepped up a gear as people built the usual weapons of war. Also, it was Europe that took the hammering, not the majority of the world, so your argument collapses.




Going on from this, INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT INCREASED MASSIVELY DURING THIS STEADY PERIOD! More cars on the road than ever, more industry, more people.... the list goes on. Yet it remained STEADY???

As I say, you are reading far too much into the graph. For a start it was not steady, but fluctuating, and secondly the scale of the variation is insufficient to form the basis of an argument. You are simply jumping to conclusions over and over again.

I could say the exact same thing about your references to the graphs (they are your graphs, after all). Why are your graphs good for data supporting MMGW, but nothing that counters it? My #1 problem with any science surrounding this. The data only seems good for one purpose, even when it is contradicting itself.



Here is an inconvenient truth for you to try and explain away: In the early 1970s, Europe passed a Clean Air Bill. Curious that this is exactly the same time that temperatures start rising.

Easy. Technological advances and their uptake by industry have been slow processes. Legislation takes such realities into account, pushing industries to improve as quickly as possible, but back in the 70s that was not quick in absolute terms due to the size of the challenges both in terms of technology and cost.

Quicker than you suggest. It isn't a vertical increase.


Nothing in your post stands up to even a cursory examination, copious use of capslock notwithstanding.

Yours isn't doing so well, either.

Now we've been diverted from the real issues, maybe you'd like to say exactly why warming is so bad (with proof, please)?

[edit on 11-4-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
is this the day after yesterday?

..second line



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Okay, for those of you who agree that it happening, but don't agree that we are the source:




The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.


97% of people who study this agree. To make this hit home for the deniers, if 97% of NASCAR mechanics said that a particular type of motor oil was far superior, would you doubt them?


As an aside, only 64% of meteorologist agree... hmmm .... these guys can't agree if it will be sunny or rainy tomorrow. That’s why my favorite meteorologist are pretty.


Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real

[edit on 12-4-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


You are correct in your assessment and I stand corrected. I was looking at the data provided by the website but what I didn't see (at the very bottom) was the date the site was last revised (2003).... 6 years of additional modern-human CO2 production would have increased the .28% man-made C02 figure dramatically just since the time that quanitity was estimated a few years ago. Sorry for the mix-up.

I still think that "natural" CO2 emissions are not understood well enough though to even estimate an accurate percentage figure of man-made CO2 emissions. We can estimate what we have released, to date, but since we aren't sure how much CO2 is being emitted naturally then we don't know what percentage the man-made emissions would be when you consider the massive increases in natural CO2 emissions scientists have been witnessing just over the last decade.

This takes me back to my last post. Even if man-made CO2 emissions are increasing rapidly due to modern industrialization and global modernization, the percentage of man-made CO2 wouldn't necessarily change all that much. There isn't enough scientific data though. Estimates on natural CO2 emissions only account for what we know of scientifically and they don't account for all the factors we aren't aware of. That's the big problem. I actually believe global warming is much worse than alot of folks in the scientific community portray because of what they don't account for and what they aren't aware of from a scientific standpoint.

-ChriS



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
Okay, for those of you who agree that it happening, but don't agree that we are the source:




The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.


97% of people who study this agree. To make this hit home for the deniers, if 97% of NASCAR mechanics said that a particular type of motor oil was far superior, would you doubt them?


As an aside, only 64% of meteorologist agree... hmmm .... these guys can't agree if it will be sunny or rainy tomorrow. That’s why my favorite meteorologist are pretty.


Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real

[edit on 12-4-2009 by finemanm]


It's possible for the minority to be correct while the majority is wrong. It has happened on many occasions in the past. But, regardless if Global Warming is man made or not, the question remains: Can we reverse it? World Climate Experts seem to think so, but say it would take a drastic reduction in fossil fuel useage over the next decades. Possible? Sure. Likely? I don't know.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by LiquidLight]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

"PLAY A ROLE".

That role could be very small. Again, yet another ommission from the pro-MMGW camp.

I agree that if you chuck out ANYTHING to the atmosphere, you just increased its concentration.

The killer question is whether it is a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE, in the practical sense.

You want to get technical and pick my posts apart (CAPS included), then let's examine STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

en.wikipedia.org...


Statistical Significance - Pitfalls

A common misconception is that a statistically significant result is always of practical significance, or demonstrates a large effect in the population. Unfortunately, this problem is commonly encountered in scientific writing.[1] Given a sufficiently large sample, extremely small and non-notable differences can be found to be statistically significant, and statistical significance says nothing about the practical significance of a difference.

One of the more common problems in significance testing is the tendency for multiple comparisons to yield spurious significant differences even where the null hypothesis is true. For instance, in a study of twenty comparisons, using an α-level of 5%, one comparison will likely yield a significant result despite the null hypothesis being true. In these cases p-values are adjusted in order to control either the familywise error rate or the false discovery rate.

An additional problem is that frequentist analyses of p-values are considered by some to overstate "statistical significance".[2][3] See Bayes factor for details.

Yet another common pitfall often happens when a researcher writes the ambiguous statement "we found no statistically significant difference," which is then misquoted by others as "they found that there was no difference." Actually, statistics cannot be used to prove that there is exactly zero difference between two populations. Failing to find evidence that there is a difference does not constitute evidence that there is no difference. This principle is sometimes described by the maxim "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

According to J. Scott Armstrong, attempts to educate researchers on how to avoid pitfalls of using statistical significance have had little success. In the papers "Significance Tests Harm Progress in Forecasting,"[4] and "Statistical Significance Tests are Unnecessary Even When Properly Done,"[5] Armstrong makes the case that even when done properly, statistical significance tests are of no value. A number of attempts failed to find empirical evidence supporting the use of significance tests. Tests of statistical significance are harmful to the development of scientific knowledge because they distract researchers from the use of proper methods.[citation needed] Armstrong suggests authors should avoid tests of statistical significance; instead, they should report on effect sizes, confidence intervals, replications/extensions, and meta-analyses.

Use of the statistical significance test has been called seriously flawed and unscientific by authors Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak. They point out that "insignificance" does not mean unimportant, and propose that the scientific community should abandon usage of the test altogether, as it can cause false hypotheses to be accepted and true hypotheses to be rejected.[6][1]


en.wikipedia.org...


Meta-Analysis - File Drawer Problem

A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics. Robert Slavin has argued that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice he calls 'best evidence meta-analysis'. Other meta-analysts would include weaker studies, and add a study-level predictor variable that reflects the methodological quality of the studies to examine the effect of study quality on the effect size. Another weakness of the method is the heavy reliance on published studies, which may increase the effect as it is very hard to publish studies that show no significant results. This publication bias or "file-drawer effect" (where non-significant studies end up in the desk drawer instead of in the public domain) should be seriously considered when interpreting the outcomes of a meta-analysis. Because of the risk of publication bias, many meta-analyses now include a "failsafe N" statistic that calculates the number of studies with null results that would need to be added to the meta-analysis in order for an effect to no longer be reliable.



The file drawer problem describes the often observed fact that only results with significant parameters are published in academic journals. As a results the distribution of effect sizes are biased, skewed or completely cut off. This can be visualized with a funnel plot which is a scatter plot of sample size and effect sizes. There are several procedures available to correct for the file drawer problem, once identified, such as simulating the cut off part of the distribution of study effects.


This is quite relevent to the discussions on global warming as it is nothing but statistical analysis of past data (ice cores, etc).

I'll never forget my maths tutor telling me once that "statistics is the art of numerical manipulation". In other words, you can make the data read anything you want it to.

READ FOLLOWING POST AT THIS POINT TO KEEP IN ORDER.

Stripping the argument back to the core problem, warming, what exactly is the problem???

* Sea Level Rise - a few places go under and people are displaced. People will have to adapt.

* It gets warmer - this is good, as many areas of the planet that are too cold to grow crops, will become warm enough to start growing crops to support our growing population.

* Ice caps melt - this isn't actually a problem. Another point missed in my previous post was that we have been coming out of an ice-age for the last 100,000 years. That p***** all over the last 500 years, or even 1,000 years of warming. Here is another fact: as the mass of ice decreases, it melts quicker even if all external factors remain constant.

Another fact often over-looked: The Earth is 4.6 Billion years old. It was a molten blob of rock and iron ore when it first formed, which cooled and became solid on its surface. Human kind will one day be made extinct, just like the dinosaurs. We have the technological capability to survive changes (and I don't mean weather manipulation). We can build shelter for ourselves, and can survive in just about any environment we are put in.

Time and again I read that people "don't like change", whether it is a new computer system (just Google "Change Management" UGGGH!!), or any other area of life where something needs to be done differently from the past.

We Humans LIKE the warm!! Look at how many people actually move to "WARMER CLIMBS" such as the tropics, or the Mediterranean (Europeans)!!

Whilst TPTB are trying to cash in on carbon dioxide and tell us how bad climate change is so they can introduce these punitive measures, do NOT overlook the good in this!!! Population is increasing, so is Mother Nature giving us a hand by permitting us to live in areas of the world that are currently uninhabitable for the fact it is too cold to either live or grow food????

Hot areas will NOT necessarily become hotter; this is a misnomer. What it will enable us to do is inhabit more of the planet, and grow food there.

Why is this bad?????

Another piece of manipulation by the pro-MMGW camp: this warming wouldn't be occurring if we didn't chuck out CO2. WRONG! The planet has been warming up for the last 100,000 years.

Factual errors on the part of the pro-MMGW camp: "Save carbon" (there are a few adverts in the UK that say that). Someone forgot to tell them that Carbon is a SOLID (and is quite chemically different to CARBON DIOXIDE). It can be found in drawing pencils etc... What they are talking about is CARBON DIOXIDE. Why have they abbreviated it to "carbon"?

No doubt it will be raised that the rate of warming has increased. But has it?? The last 8 years has seen a large reduction in the warming trend, and last winter for the coldest in over 20 years.

I'm fully aware of natural cycles, but I'm not an idiot, either. Warming (or climate change as the MGW camp will have us believe - again another piece of manipulation by using the two interchangeably), does NOT take a break just for a natural cyclic event (cool winter). The cold winter should not be able to break past records, allowing for the AVERAGE temperature rise that has allegedly occurred. The fact that these events can still happen in the face of AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RISE says it all. That CO2 (and other factors) are not as powerful as some other factor in temperature: the weather.

Please rip this apart (quoting scientific sources). Get technical - I'll follow.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Out of room in the above post.

The last quote above is quite relevent to the MMGW argument (IPCC etc..). There are many pieces of research that have been rubbished, or plain ignored because the data they show is contrary to other research. The most widely reported was the research by Norwigen scientists on the role of the Sun in warming/cooling of the planet. It wa laughed at by the pro-MMGW scientific camp as rubbish and not having any effect AT ALL, yet we all know that at night it gets cooler compared to the day (and this is simply as the result of Earths rotation). If we got rid of the Sun, we'd be dead because it is too cold.

www.gcrio.org...


THE MANY CAUSES OF CLIMATIC CHANGE

Between 1850 and 1990 the global-mean temperature at the surface of the Earth warmed by approximately 0.5°C (about 1°F). During the same period, the amount of carbon dioxide measured in the Earth's atmosphere increased by about 25 percent, as a consequence of our ever- increasing use of fossil fuels (Fig. 3c). This raises the possibility that the two trends are directly connected, and that the century-long warming is a long- anticipated sign of the climate system's response to human activities.

Still, more factors were obviously perturbing the climate system than the lone hand of greenhouse gases. The global-mean temperature did not rise steadily: statistical analyses of the temperature record since 1850 reveal significant year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability. Moreover, what is known of the longer climatic record suggests that surface temperatures may have been systematically increasing since the late 17th century (Figure 3d), well before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, when greenhouse gas concentrations first began their upward climb.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
www.gcrio.org...


THE MANY CAUSES OF CLIMATIC CHANGE




The rapid warming since 1970 is several times larger than that expected from any known or suspected effects of the Sun, and may already indicate the growing influence of atmospheric greenhouse gases on the Earth's climate.


The conclusion of the same article - it is from 1996 as well, lol. In a more recent article from Judith Lean (2008):


None of the natural processes can account for the
overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the
100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends
produce by all three natural influences are at least an order
of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature
trend reported by IPCC [2007]. According to this analysis,
solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in
the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100
years...

pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

Solar influences have never been ignored. They just haven't been as influential recently as some would like them to be.

As for your earlier post, leave the issue of statistical significance to those that understand it and its problems, lol. As not all uses of 'significance' are for statistical significance, your external quote even points that out. But as for this:


That role could be very small. Again, yet another ommission from the pro-MMGW camp.


Not at all. The extent of the role has been assessed. Perhaps check out the most recent IPCC report. It appears to have a very significant role. Hence why 280ppm-560ppm is estimated to result in 2-4.5'C warming. One of the sceptics (i.e., a publishing scientist, not the ideologically motivated shilling deniers) put CO2 attribution of current warming since 1850 at about 26%, but the IPCC has it at around 40%, IIRC.

Significant enough even at 26%.


[edit on 12-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Oh for God's sake how many times do we have to debate the same thing over and over again?

Every time this issue gets debated it comes down to a few points:

- The climate is changing... it's called weather

- The Impact of CO2 emissions by man is marginal at best.

- The fact that the solution offered by the governing bodies is a fraudulent CO2 cap and trade system wherein certain corporate and governmental entities will tax the ---- out of everything in the name of CO2 reduction. Effectively letting the biggest corps continue their output just as long as they pay up.

- Given the low impact man has in this scenario, the solutions offered is uncalled for and a total overkill.


Let me just add this. For anyone who has an open mind and knows the mere basics of a conspiracy, it is blatantly obvious that the reason why MMGW is being aggressively pushed comes down to the enormous amount of money already vested in the scheme and the promise that it will deliver trillions more once fully implemented.

If the Rothschilds announcing that they will be set up the infrastructure for global carbon trading/taxing does not signal a red flag, I don't know what will.

Deny Ignorance, focus on real environmental issues instead of falling for their games one more time.



Note to add: I know studies vary as to just what % man contributes to CO2 levels globally, let me just say that even if it's estimated at 8% their solution is still overkill.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by vegno
 


I actually believe that man's conduct from the beginning of the industrial revolution has had a major effect on the climate; however, I am also open to the idea that TPTB are also using this coming global disaster for making tremendous profits and protecting themselves.

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by pause4thought

It's a great pity so many continue to argue global warming is a myth


Sigh....

I can't remember how many times I've had to correct this statement. Most of us that say otherwise say that Global Warming is NOT ANTHROPOGENICALLY CAUSED. We are not denying that climate shift is happening, just that it is a NATURAL OCCURRENCE and NOT human-caused.

[edit on 5/4/2009 by Kryties]

Thank you 'Kryties'. It was alot easier for me to understand 'Global Climate Change' as the term.
Also more of my agreement go to 'MirageofDeciet'.

Everybody it's 'Global Climate Change' not 'Global Warming'. This has occured throughout our past. Yes, what is occurring I believe will impact our lives but it's just part of mother natures cycle.

orionthehunter

If people were really worried about global warming, it seems like someone would start dropping iron ore powder into the ocean to cheaply reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Maybe scientists don't want to alter things as is so they can study if things are going to continue to get worse as is. I guess you could also argue that there is money to be made developing green technologies. No profit to be made dumping iron ore powder in the ocean and fixing the global warming problem cheaply.

They tried this and it didn't work-

www.eurekalert.org...
Predators: Amphipods instead of krill

"To our surprise, the iron-fertilized patch attracted large numbers of zooplankton predators belonging to the crustacean group known as amphipods", explains Professor Dr Victor Smetacek, co-chief scientist from Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association. These shrimp like crustaceans are between two and three centimetres long and feed indiscriminately on other zooplankton including copepods. The dominant species Themisto gaudichaudii plays an important role in the food web of the Southern Ocean. It is the main food of squid and fin whales in the south-western Atlantic.

Matter of fact, it sorta backfired-

Concentrations of gases other than CO2 produced by the plankton either did not change or increased negligibly in the bloom. Some of these gases such as nitrous oxide and methane are potent greenhouse gases, others such as halogenated hydrocarbons contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. By the end of the experiment, chlorophyll concentrations were in decline. By now the patch will have merged with its surroundings leaving behind no trace other than a swarm of well-fed amphipods.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Water vapor is overwhelmingly the largest greenhouse gas--in the 90th percentile. Not much we can do about that.

Methane (cow farts) is also up there. Should we kill off all cows?

Volcanism too.

And our Co2 emissions are a fraction of a fraction of all that.

Solar activity is the largest cause of global warming, and has been tracked over centuries and its alignment with temperature trends is compelling.

We should reign in pollution, but not by using this strawman.



This post is absolutely correct. I had posted some information I has read from an interview with the father of modern day climatology Dr. Reid Bryson. This guy pioneered the science that most of the lemmings in society ignore in order to argue their points.

He explained that in Greenland, they were doing some testing, and they ran across a recently, ice freed, silver mine. He explains that when they entered the silver mine, they saw the workers tools had been neatly arraigned as though the miners had simply gone home for the winter.

So, for the less astute, if the mine was once warm enough to actually work, and had at the time just became free of ice, this would be hard evidence of a cyclical pattern, and not evidence that these miners had ran their suv's for too long.

Carbon dioxide is PLANT FOOD. The carbon credits scam is just that, a scam to get you to pay for something which is naturally filtering in nature.

Can someone please provide some indication a link maybe that explains how desalinization will effect currents. Sure I also saw the "Day After Tomorrow", and I heard the part where the room full of actors stated such, but I haven't seen any solid evidence to this effect. Yes, I am aware that salt water is more dense that fresh water. I also fail to see how a floating ice shelf breaking up will increase water levels, as it is already floating.

Try a quick experiment, take a glass of water. Insert an ice cube. Measure the line the water level is at with the ice cube in the water. Wait until ice cube melts. Remeasure, does the water level rise? Was Archimedes incorrect? Are people just big lemmings?

Thanks for reading
..Ex



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join