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.

 

Glacier Grows Despite Global Warming

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I'd like to make a couple of small points...

Despite the fact that AGW proponents would like us to think they can accurately forecast weather patterns, they can't.

There is a reason the name has changed from "global warming" to "climate change"
BTW isn't "climate change" also known as "weather"?

Namely that warming couldn't be proved without also including the effects of the sun, which is contrary to the agenda being pursued.

ALL of the models which predict warming are only as good as the data input - of course this applies equally to opposite models.

Everybody who publishes has an agenda. i.e. they are on one side of the fence or the other and in many instances have a personal interest in "proving" thatt their theory is right, whether that interest is monetary or not.

Until we can have real debate, with no special interest groups involved this will not be resolved - we will just continue to have the same back and forth that we do now.

This whole thing detracts from real environmental issues - pollution, deforestation and poisoning the earth are all on the back burner and out of sight as this argument rages on.

But you know something?
Maybe, just maybe, that's the conspiracy here - while we keep being told we're going to drown, starve or be boiled alive, the corporations can keep going on their merry way and people like Gore can keep pocketing millions whilst acting in the most hypocritical way.

BTW, nice thread OZ.
S&F

[edit on 23/6/2009 by budski]




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
There is a reason the name has changed from "global warming" to "climate change"


It always has been climate change (hence it's IPCC and not IPGW - though I think the latter would have been more appropriate).

Global warming is one aspect of climate change - the aspect the media and politicians picked on to highlight because it seemed the easiest to understand (and perhaps also the easiest to use as an excuse to raise taxes). And it has a better ring to than Multiple Regional Anthropogenically Enhanced Climate Change. or even Global Precipitation Pattern Change.

(plus the fact that a lot of stupid people still assume global warming means everywhere on the planet gets warmer year on year and thus if it's not warmer somewhere this year than last it porves there cannot be global warming. After trying to explain this 10,675,451 times we finally gave up
)



BTW isn't "climate change" also known as "weather"?


No climate is an average of expected weather over a given period - usually not less than 30 years. Climate change means that the average weather over such period has changed - warmer, colder, wetter, drier etc This may be for a variety of reasons.


ALL of the models which predict warming are only as good as the data input - of course this applies equally to opposite models.


Which is where us sceptics come in, accepting the science but disputed the predictions



Everybody who publishes has an agenda. i.e. they are on one side of the fence or the other and in many instances have a personal interest in "proving" thatt their theory is right, whether that interest is monetary or not.


Largely true. But that applies in all science and indeed all walks of life. Everyone want to prove their own theory or opinion is correct. In most cases the truth is a bit of one and a bit of another and over time we put all these together and get an accepted scientific theory.

The analogy I always use is "what killed the dinosaurs" - which heated debate continuing over Chicxulub v Deccan Traps v Something Else and, IMHO, the truth being all of them to varying extents. I don't "one size fits all" theories.


Until we can have real debate, with no special interest groups involved this will not be resolved - we will just continue to have the same back and forth that we do now.


The good thing is, unlike with "what killed the dinosaurs?", over the next few decades we will be able to see what happens and have better indications of who is right.

My guess: not the cooling the solar guys expect nor the warming the CO2 guys predict.

I actually think the majority involved in climate science are sceptics to some degree - it's just those who appear on TV and right books who strongly beleive in one side or the other. Despite what some would have you believe, most scientists do not produce results to match a theory, they devise a theory based on results. And amend that theory constantly as new results or data emerge. As happened, and continues to happen, with astrophysics or plate tectonics.


This whole thing detracts from real environmental issues - pollution, deforestation and poisoning the earth are all on the back burner and out of sight as this argument rages on.


Yes
Though I do think part of it is that CO2 reduction is something we in the west can instigate ourselves, whereas much of the other big issues - such as deforestation and pollution - mean telling developing nations what to do. And that's not politically correct, even if what those developing nations is doing is committing environmental suicide.



And none of which has anything to do with glaciers doing what they always do - advance and retreat.

As an aside, the Kilimanjaro Glaciers did not exist during the last Ice Age. Because it was too dry. Precipitation is as, if not more, important than temperature. But the AGW/anti-AGW guys don't like you to know that



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


The only issue I have with the entire post is the "name" given to this current fad by one person who popularized the term and then went on to make a fortune out of it whilst simultaneously using enough resources to keep 20 people for a whole lifetime.

This person brought the name into the public eye simply to make vast amounts of money off it.

Now that temps are falling, the name has been changed to "climate change" in an attempt to keep the gravy train flowing.

Frankly, while people like "him" are in charge, we don't stand a chance of cleaning up the planet and stopping the destruction.

(I'm sure you know who I mean, but I don't want to give the scum any google hits
)



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Essan
 


The only issue I have with the entire post is the "name" given to this current fad by one person who popularized the term and then went on to make a fortune out of it whilst simultaneously using enough resources to keep 20 people for a whole lifetime.



Indeed. I feel much the same! And I actually think he did a lot of damage to the credibility of AGW theory in the process.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Essan]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Except the ninos have always been here too and a part of the cycle. So why should they suddenly de stabilize things?



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Hello I posted this as my introduction thread but i probably should have taken my time and put it here first.
I know this has been discussed before but I have question about the validity of the climate change theory being posed by many scientist. I have been scratching my head for quite a while about the issue of global warming, I happen to have been taught in grade school that we have only recently (in the history of the planet) had an ice age and that the planet is still climbing out of it. In fact only 20,000 years ago most of Canada was covered in hundreds of feet of ice. The average global temperature for the last century is 57 degrees f. www.noaanews.noaa.gov... But if you look at this graph It suggest that it is somewhere around 77 degrees f, over the history of the planet.

I don't know why I can't get the vid to work Sauron fixed it on the other post and I just coppied and pasted?
www.geocraft.com...
With that in mind, we have a long way to go just to get up to average. So here are my questions.
What has happened after every ice age? The answer is it got warmer, it would not stay the same temperature or else we would still be in the ice age.
Also if you look at the co2 in atmosphere we are far below normal, so why are we now passing laws to limit the emissions of co2?
Are we being fed a line in order for governments to fill their coffers?
Also how long will it be before we are taxed on our breathing?
As the late George Carlin says are we being arrogant to think that we could have such a great impact on our environment?



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Most of my questions are addressed in this thread, and I doubt I will get the answers. If there were answers we would not be discussing this. I have to say that climate change is inevitable be it man made or not, and i can not help but think that soon we will be taxed for breathing.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Here's a decent little article which seems to cover many of the points raised here so far. It starts with what's happening with Greenland glaciers lately. The other article linked to earlier seemed to be talking about old stuff.

Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Ntity]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join