It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Global Warming Now Audible, Study Says

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Global Warming Now Audible, Study Says


news.nationalgeographic.com

For decades, seismologists have been filtering out the sounds of massive, storm-driven ocean waves crashing into coastlines. The pesky noise was getting in the way of earthquake detection.

But now some experts are electronically filtering out the quakes—and turning up the volume on the storm waves.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Can you believe that they are still studying storms from the 1930s? The information that they're learning now about events that occurred over 60 years ago could help identify or clarify some of the climate change trends.

Studying waves gives a very specific sort of information that can be used to predict future storm strength as well as study the erosion of coastland.

We think that we know so much about the world today, but we don't even know this information from decades ago. In order to realize where we stand as a planet, we need to look at this critical information to find trends.

It's so ironic that for years these sounds were filtered out to simplify listening for earthquakes. But now we're realizing that the sounds of these waves are so important in learning about how climate change directly affects us. Who knows, maybe we're filtering out information today that will one day lead to groundbreaking discoveries, decades from now.

news.nationalgeographic.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Good thing that the global warming is still ocuring otherwise it may have really gotten cold around here.




THE Far North's cold snap has broken a 113 year record in the Cooktown region north of Cairns and smashed six other records for May.

Palmerville Station’s George Wilson knew he was in for a chilly night but had no idea the mercury would drop to 6.5C early yesterday morning – a temperature 1.3C lower than the coldest May day on record since 1896 on the property southwest of Cooktown.

cairns.com.au

wonder if the waves saw this one coming?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


I used the term "climate change" in my post. "Global warming" was the term chosen by National Geographic. I don't believe that we can know exactly what is going on without all the evidence, and since much of this evidence is still being discovered and processed, I do not believe that we are in a position to make any conclusions about the environmental state of our planet. It's a rash decision to say "The climate is fine" or "We're all going to die from climate change." Until we really know what's going on, we need to look at all the evidence we can and make our own conclusions. Apparently there has been an increase in these powerful oceanic storms since the 1930s. That must mean something. Everything means something.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Yes, it means that the earth is once again going through a cycle, just as it does every year, only it does it on a larger scale.
I have no doubt the climate is changing, as long as we have sun and water we will always have a climate.

My biggest problem is when computer models are used with only a few bits of information and is portratyed as being the truth and we must believe everything that comes out in the media.

When it can be explained to me why China builds a coal fired power plant every week which produces enough electricity for 1 million people, why industry hasn't slowed down and more cars are on the road, when people consume more than double the electricity they did 50 years ago, why is the planet staying at a steady temperature then I will take these so called experts seriously, until then, I will just believe they are following a script to turn us all into carbon slaves.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Interesting study, I wonder just how big storms are going to get in the coming decades. Will category 5 hurricanes become the new category 1 storms?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
The climate is always shifting. As the sun goes, so do we.

Did you know that the Earth has only had ice at the poles for 20% of its' existence (Professor Plimmer).



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


www.sdi.gov...

More or less. Although in the 1800s it was in the mid-upper 56's, and now it's more in the upper 57's with some 58's thrown in. Small changes, but in time small changes make a big difference.

epa.gov...

There's a cool chart of the temperature anomalies.

I mean, everyone has their own opinion on the matter. There isn't a ton of evidence but there's enough for me.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DraconianKing
 


I don't know. Here are some cool related stats, though:

www.redorbit.com...



- Overall hurricane activity - a combination of frequency and hurricane strength - increases 49 percent.

- The number of intense hurricanes, with winds over 110 mph, increases 45 percent.

- The number of hurricanes of any size increases 36 percent.

- The number of tropical storms increase 31 percent.

For example, 2005 was the most active hurricane season on record, and Atlantic water temperatures were the warmest, about 1.4 degrees above normal. That hurricane season set a new high with 28 storms and 13 hurricanes. Seven of the hurricanes were major storms.

In 1971, when the water temperatures were the coolest, there were 13 storms and six hurricanes, including one major one.

The index of overall hurricane activity was more than twice as high in 2005 as it was in 1971.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

There isn't a ton of evidence but there's enough for me.


And we have a winner, that is all they need.

you need a ton of evidence before you let them operate on you, you need a ton of evidence on the medication you take before you take it.
You need a ton of evidence to believe most things, yet you don't need a ton of evidence on something which impacts every man woman and child on this planet



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Well I'm also an ecology and zoology major and I consider the decline in specific species to be good enough for me, for my goals, for my purposes. If it's not warming, it means it's deforestation or pollution. Either way it's going to be our fault. So I think we should do something about it.

I also know that fossil fuels aren't clean and aren't forever, either. I think that there are better options and if we can use them, we should.

There are some areas where the ice is melting and breaking apart, and there are some places where it has reached record lows. I'm not a meteorologist, but I've seen enough evidence to prove that something weird is going on, and all the nastiness we're putting into the air can't be helping anyone.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


species have died off for a millenia even without human interference, it is called nature.
Darwin even touched the subject a little


I am not against renewable energies or deforrestation.
We should clean up our acts and look for alternatives, but we should stop looking at carbon as being the bogie man and trying to look at ways of taxing it.

I am all for carbon reduction, but do not put a price on it because when you make it a commodoty you will be in debt for the rest of your life just to breath out.

I am a nature freak myself, but I am also a realist and can see how this whole climate change deal is being used as a political stand point and is doing nothing more than giving those in charge more power over us.

It isn't about saving the planet, it is about control



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DraconianKing
Interesting study, I wonder just how big storms are going to get in the coming decades. Will category 5 hurricanes become the new category 1 storms?


This isn't a movie like the day after tomorrow
Be realistic, storms recently haven't even been that bad historically, they just hit a larger populated city.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


I'm not saying carbon emissions should be taxed either!

I think everyone should realize that there are better alternatives and makes the switch willingly.

I'm not even saying buy a hybrid or smartcar. I'm saying stop spending all your money on a Hummer and then complain about gas prices.

Species do die off naturally but not at this rate. Not species that were previously doing fine. There aren't so many mutations going on preventing continued evolution. The habitat loss is racing against the speed that a population can evolve. And the animals are losing.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Mankind is using more than he is taking from the planet and eventually we are going to have to pay the piper. We are a consuming society and we have come to think we can take forever with no consequences. We can debate global warming or climate change all we want with the vast amount of data available each side makes a good case. Bottom line and common sense should prove we are doing great damage to our ecosystem. There is a delicate balance of life on this beautiful sphere and we are ruining it, once a species is gone it is gone forever and we again change the face of our home.

I think this is a wonderful report and hopefully scientists will come to learn that by listening to the earth and paying attention we can learn about our future from our past.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by redhead57
 


Yes, pretty much exactly what I was trying to say. I think it's difficult to argue that we did not cause or worsen this situation. This planet is the only home we have. Every organism that lives here impacts an infinite number of others. And really we should just be more responsible for our environment and the organisms we share it with.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 

That's interesting. I'd like to see where Saunders pulled those figures from. The 2007 IPCC synthesis report states that there is no clear trend in the number of tropical cyclones. They then go on to say that there is "suggestions" and "observational evidence" that there may be an increase in intense cyclone activity in the North Atlantic.

For a cyclone/hurricane/typhoon to be classed as severe, it needs to cause considerable damage to property. With more and more people moving to beachside properties in cyclone prone areas, it's no suprise that there would be an increase. But then again, if it can be spun to look as though it's all our fault (maybe it is, but it sure isn't proven), then it will.


The scientists who have linked global warming to stronger storms said the study makes sense, and is, if anything, just repeating and refining what they have already said. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Chris Landsea, whose studies have dismissed such links, said Saunders' study doesn't go back far enough to exclude natural cyclical causes for the hurricane activity changes.

source
Thought I'd add that from the same article as the increased cyclone activity info. Cheers
[edit on 22-5-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Curious and Concerned]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I just looked for a bit of background info on the above mentioned Chris Landsea. It turns out he withdrew himself from the IPCC AR4.


Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.


This is from his open letter to the community here. And he is certainly not the only member of the IPCC to leave due to the focus on polotics, as opposed to science within the IPCC. Many scientests were withheld information that they were supposed to be reviewing, when it turnded out the data was misrepresented. And for those who trust the IPCC wholeheartedly, here is a site with links to 50 other sites whitch refute the IPCC. Some of them are merely blogs and opinions, but there are valid arguments. Check them out if you are really interested.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by munkey66
 


I used the term "climate change" in my post. "Global warming" was the term chosen by National Geographic. I don't believe that we can know exactly what is going on without all the evidence, and since much of this evidence is still being discovered and processed, I do not believe that we are in a position to make any conclusions about the environmental state of our planet. It's a rash decision to say "The climate is fine" or "We're all going to die from climate change." Until we really know what's going on, we need to look at all the evidence we can and make our own conclusions. Apparently there has been an increase in these powerful oceanic storms since the 1930s. That must mean something. Everything means something.


I absolutely could not agree with you more


Thank you for the stand of taking an interest in the actual Scientific side of this debate in regards to this thread, as opposed to the all too often Politicized and seemingly Popular version of such. Nice Job there.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Raven is right. We need to think about the harm we are causing to our planet. What are the odds that we are on a planet that can support life? And then we destroy it. Many species have died due to changes in the environment (or other causes) and we could only hope that ours would be the one's to overcome these challenges. We let politics and other factors get into the way.

We are in an society where we don't know our economy is in bad shape until it is in bold letters from the media everyday. We can only imagine when people will admit that with a population of 6 trillion there is a possibility that earths climate might be effected by humans.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join