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.

 

Climate Change Odds Much Worse Than Thought

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I like to 'google' global cooling, always interesting.
some points on 'global warming' termites produce more Methane than cattle, volcanic activity has gone up %300 in the last 2000 years, CO2 is 383 parts per million of the total atmosphere, can so litte do so much?humans produce 7 billion tons of various crap into the air, per year, volcanoes produce 10 billion tons of gas and particulates. a resent artic survey team stated that the ice sheet was 2 meters thicker than they thought it would be, it was 4 meters when they measured it.
snow in Bagdad for the first time in known history, there is a huge tonnage of frozen Methane in the permerfrost, also frozen methane at the bottom of the seas in the northern hemisphere. Rotting vegitation and animals also produce methane
Japanes scientists have stated that global warmin is not man made, 600 'western scientists have signed a petition stating that they thinks GW is not manmade I have been collecting information like this for a year now.
one last point, the Brit. met. office has issued a graph showing global temperature has dropped since the year 2000.




posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by observer
I am just flabergasted at the idea that wanting to preserve a clean planet to pass on to the next generation is sneered at by anyone. What is wrong with you people?


If leaving a clean planet is your objective, then there are many more important issues than C02. How about the giant plastic bottle and garbage islands that are forming in the oceans, deforestation, erosion of topsoil from bad farming practices, the water being polluted with pharmaceuticals and causing hormone changes. There are hundreds of issues most of which are much more clear and have a clear consensus unlike these dumb models of plant food, which are continually found to be inaccurate and in some cases fraudulent.

Climate change is so full of junk science and sensational stories it seems more and more to be one of the biggest lies of our time, I could be wrong but I seriously doubt it at this point. Why are other planets warming too? Why would a gas that makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere have such a huge effect on temperature. Most of all why do almost all of these models not calculate changes in the sun cycles? One would think that the sun would have a pretty large impact on temperature, maybe it's just me. I think its important to note too that warmer times in history such as the medieval period have generally been times of prosperity not doom and gloom.

That kind of turned into a rant, but don't buy into the propaganda. Focus on what we know is real and can fix.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Let me give some examples of how flawed these GCMs are, and which many people blindly believe are perfect.



Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. [size]The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...




The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...




Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...

About the lie, I mean claim that the Earth was warmer during the late 20th, and beginning of the 21st century...



On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.
www.diva-portal.org...



[edit on 21-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Oh, and let's not forget what some very recent research is telling us..



Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
compo@colorado.edu
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

Notice that the data shows that the land warming is being caused by ocean warming, and that the statement about "possible anthropogenic warming" is nothing more than an opinion, and not what the data says.



[edit on 21-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by observer
I am just flabergasted at the idea that wanting to preserve a clean planet to pass on to the next generation is sneered at by anyone. What is wrong with you people?


Everyone should be doing this ANYWAY!!!!

Its just that being lied to by governments and our authorities is so annoying.

I recycle, have a fuel efficient car, use as little energy as possible and completely support the green energy revolution that is starting but still hate that we are being treated like animals and lied to in order to force the greedy to change their practices.

Propaganda under any flag is still lies.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by observer
................
I am just flabergasted at the idea that wanting to preserve a clean planet to pass on to the next generation is sneered at by anyone. What is wrong with you people?


Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant. You are living in a CARBON BASED PLANET. Plant life, and animal life ALWAYS thrive with more atmospheric CO2, and the atmospheric CO2 level is NOWHERE near to the levels it has been in the past when the Earth was GREENER and of course plant life thrived as well as animal life including in the oceans.

What is wrong with people such as yourself not understanding this?...

You keep believing the lies, and the hoax that is being perpetrated to tax people more, and to control people more. I'll rather side with facts, and the truth.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by beautyfrompain
I didn't realize that there was such a divide of opinions regarding this topic.

I don't think however that just because someone doesn't believe in Climate Change they should be tossed in with Holocaust deniers.


There is a difference between "Climate Change" and the "Global Warming Hoax".

Climate change does happen, and noone denies this, and this is exactly what the Earth, and every planet in the Solar system, and including Moons with an atmosphere are going through.

The Global Warming Hoax is the claim that Earth is experiencing Climate change due to anthropogenic (man-made) CO2, and this is nothing more than a lie.


[edit on 21-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by beautyfrompain
I didn't realize that there was such a divide of opinions regarding this topic.

I don't think however that just because someone doesn't believe in Climate Change they should be tossed in with Holocaust deniers.


There is a difference between "Climate Change" and the "Global Warming Hoax".

Climate change does happen, and noone denies this, and this is exactly what the Earth, and every planet in the Solar system, and including Moons with an atmosphere are going through.

The Global Warming Hoax is the claim that Earth is experiencing Climate change due to anthropogenic (man-made) CO2, and this is nothing more than a lie.


[edit on 21-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


Thanks very much for the clarification ElectricUniverse. I am very aware that climate change does happen naturally on Earth, and I think I may have gotten my terminology mixed up.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by observer
 


Fantastic post. I wholeheartedly agree.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Well, there is a solid consensus in every science article I have read on the subject or interview I have listened to that the term should be Global Climate Change. We don't honestly know how it is going to end up. I for one expect that it is just outright destabilizing. It could go hot like the days of the dinos for a few years and then cold for a few years. We'll adapt, as usual.

In the mean time, let's stop squelching good, real, and available energy technologies like plasma gassification that can hep reduce our contribution to the destabilization and clean out most of our landfills at the same time.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Thanks. The point of my post was more a rant about ecology in general rather than global warming. I completely agree with Dermo and Miraclerock about the "known knowns" that we can fix now. Electricuniverse, thanks for pillorying me with scientific data, gives me new things to investigate.


I would argue though that outside the global warming argument that we need to start treating the planet with a bit more respect. The plastic island MRock mentioned is 3 times the size of Texas for Pete's sake. We will eventually run out of oil (or close) and coal is filthy. I don't think anyone can argue that breathing the exhaust from coal or oil burning is good for you so why don't we start seriously investing in alternative energy development.


[edit on 21-5-2009 by observer]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Much agreed that we need to find alternative ways of fueling our planet, and treat it with kindess and respect. I was astounded to find out about the plastic island, it makes me sick to think about



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Here is a video on the plastic stuff if your interested.
www.ted.com...



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by beautyfrompain
 


I personally think this issue is a big deal and climate change will be disastrous. But when one source says "yes" and one says "no" back and forth almost every week, it must be confusing.

I'm sure pretty soon there will be another "The ice isn't melting" article, or something like that.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Might I remind everyone that the Ocean emits more methane than the human race can ever hope to produce...

It is a cycle, the earth heats up: the ocean heats up: ocean releases methane: earth heats up more: suddenly there is an ice age: Earth cools down: rinse and repeat.

Stopping carbon emissions isnt going to stop the cycle. The powerful just want to make more money.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by miraclerock
 


MRock. I have heard radio interviews about this issue but seeing it makes me a tad ill. Lord. Even if we tried we can't fix this. What the heck are we supposed to do? Ideas?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by observer

While I do not discount the possiblity that there are "schemes" to be perpetrated on the back of global climate change the science seems pretty clear that we are at least speeding up the process of altering the climate through the unchecked burning of fossil fuels. At this point I think most in the scientific community look at the climate change doubters with about as much respect as most people look at holocaust deniers.
...............


BS, there are more respected scentists who disagree and have become not only skeptics but they emphatically state mankind has nothing to do with Climate Change.

Mankind is responsible for the large plastic islands in the Pacific Ocean. Mankind, and more so now developing countries are responsible for releasing toxic chemicals into the oceans, yet none of this is being said, and no plans are being made except to "put taxes for a natural gas which every living thing exhales."

The whole Global Warming claim has been, and is nothing more than a hoax, and this latest hoax stated in the OP is nothing more than one of the final attempts to push for policies that will only tax us more, and control us more.

All the Global Warming camp has are flawed climate models which have been proven to be wrong dozens of times,


You make a very very compelling argument and yeah, why AREN'T we cleaning up all that plastic and chemicals we are dumping into are oceans and streams when we BOTH KNOW we have NO division on what we BOTH can see is true. I get tired of hearing about a place (antarctica) that is losing huge Ice shelfs or being shown videos of Giant areas of it breaking off into the ocean saying this is what is happening NOW and for some reason it looks mysteriously familiar to the video I saw three or four years ago, and lo and behold it is the EXACT same one being pushed as if it was last week. The other thing I am suspicious of is the WAY they go about proving this so called science is eearily similar to the way I see Darwinism being pushed down throats using the same semantics and ridicule for anyone not completely buying it. They call it a FACT and offer explanations that always assume evolution is true.

This Science seems to always use the same methods of proving it which always assume global warming is already a proven fact. I have even seen them call anyone who DOESN'T buy the climate change crap, similar names that align and malign the religious. I don't frequent threads like this as I do not feel confident arguing what I don't understand but this post by this man, rings true to me for some reason and Ill bet it is because it is full of what we used to call common sense.

I may be wrong about some of the cultural divide having similar ideologies in this science as i have seen in origins threads but one thing I can see and have observed is that if we are going to spend any money on cleaning up anything, it ought to be what we know using proof we ourselves know unequivocally is human waste and refuse because we can see the words Coca~Cola on the labels and can taste the acid or smell the stench.

I am glad this poster has made such a strong committment to undermining what seems to be a deliberate mission to dumb down the public getting them so educated about what seems more and more to be just another hoax like this latest so called missing link that palientologists just found. I was sitting on the fence too long so I started reading the many pasy posts given argumenst for and against global warming and I have been most influenced by this posters passion, common sense and obviously his committment to knowing all he does about such a contentious debate going on in a place I can't just drive to and see if all that ice falling away is true or not.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
All of you climate change zealots, you're a big joke. There's hundreds of environemental problems MUCH worse than that and happening right NOW.

Water pollution, DU, GMOs, man-made chemical and biological weapons, the oil industry hiding alternative technologies, poverty, wars, corruption, war crimes, nuclear weapons, police state... ect...

Africa calls global warming taxes ``The New Imperialism``. Imposing the whole global warming BS on Africa to stop their development is totally ridiculous and cruel. As an african leader said, before imposing global warming regulations on Africa, you should wipe out all big cities in Europe and America otherwise your demands are totally hypocritical.

A tax on carbon is a tax on life. You start going down that path and you're screwed, next it will be forced one child policy, sterilisation, government control of everything in your life, carbon rations, we'll live like we'll be in jail, but even worse.

We have bigger problems right NOW than that silly global warming BS.

And why would we believe the government? They ALWAYS lie, especially Obama. If scientists would say that a police state would save you from the evil terrorists I guess we should all bow down to them?

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by beautyfrompain
 


The way I see it even if we humans are the ones causing the warming (and I've seen no conclusive evidence to suggest such) I fear the prospect of what "rapid and massive action" might do to our Climate even more.

If there's one thing this whole thing has taught us its that we shouldn't meddle with nature so let's not mess around with the Climate any more than we need to, if we start actively tampering with our climate we could end up making changes far more dangerous to our species then the warming trend we are currently in...



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Well, there is a solid consensus in every science article I have read on the subject or interview I have listened to that the term should be Global Climate Change. We don't honestly know how it is going to end up. I for one expect that it is just outright destabilizing. It could go hot like the days of the dinos for a few years and then cold for a few years. We'll adapt, as usual.

In the mean time, let's stop squelching good, real, and available energy technologies like plasma gassification that can hep reduce our contribution to the destabilization and clean out most of our landfills at the same time.


NO! This is just what they have done in the theory of evolution to make the theory so elastic no matter what happens they can fit the science to their theory. The obfuscation has GOT to stop. Words like macro and micro get merged to mean the same thing even when one has been observed while the other has not attaching an observed theory to one that has never been forces us by languaging the meaning of one you automatically accept the meaning of the other.

The word species was made a contentious issue so much so that no matter what you say, about a dog evolving into another dog and by breed it can now be called a species while it is still a dog. I was told by someone when the global dimming theory was emerging, they said watch the global warming people will start calling it global climate change where we will assume it is about warming at periods when it isn't warming and at periods when it is they will equivocate between global warming and global climate change again.

I have seen this done by Darwinists using micro evolution for macro evolution and all it does is confuse novice science fanatics and irritates the hell out of anyone having to constantly check and correct it. If it is warm say warm if it is getting cold then say cold but saying it is change?

That is about as full of nonsense as it was expecting good to come from Obama saying it when the only REAL change I have seen going on in the man in the white house is race.

So far all I have seen for proving global warming is speculation and lots of tweaked computer models that get more menacing more potentially disasterous results which only make me more suspicious feeling more coerced and wanting to yell BACK OFF with the BS. They are as bad as a religious cult with that stuff like hell fire and brimstone preachers who have no proof of anything but faith they are right saying it is backed up by "science" . Science has got to be the most fickle facts I ever hear about anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join