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.

 

New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Sorry Mods ...
Since the topic of Greed & Money isn't really this thread's, I opened a new thread at : GREED and MONEY




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by orkson

Man, you've got a problem ...

Unless the fate of billions of humans on earth is not concerning you, you should remember what is at stake :
- starvation caused by sterile lands and lack of water.
- floodings covering whole countries.
- extreme weather phenomenons
- etc ...



And I suppose you have evidence of those claims?
You sound like a horseman of the Apocalypse, where's the pestilence, I want pestilence? Once the Sahara was green, mankind made it through that climate change, we will make it through this one. Be sure to write your Senator and tell him how much in Cap and Trade you are personally willing to pay to the Government each year. NOT
Be afraid – be very afraid of those who would exploit our natural climate cycles for personal gain.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Also, CO2 is NOT a good indication of pollution levels (If that were the case, the dinosaurs must have been terrible polluters.), as the ocean will emit CO2 if it warms up due to increased solar irradiance or other factors.


The Dinosaurs did not listen to their Dino Senators and did not put a carbon tax in place........look what happened to them!!!



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

But keep in mind that cap and trade is NOT an ecologist movement, its aneconomical movement, that will do little to actually help the environment. Polluters still pollute, they (actualy not them, consumers will) just pay more. Maybe it will help curb pollution to an extent, but the $$ spent trying to prevent climate change could be much better spent in cleaning up the environment and helping the real problems humanity face.

Well, that's my opinion




This one paragraph explains why Al Gore's scam is a money grabbing fiasco. If people would understand this then maybe we could enact some real change that would help the planet instead of arguing over how happy that particular polar bear is. If we don't take care of our earth, then our earth will take care of us. It will remain, but we will not.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Hi Orkson



Originally posted by orkson
I don't know from where you've got your CO2 stats, which contradict the stats I gave.

No they don't contradict each other. The timescale on the graph I showed goes back in millions of years. I got it from here although it's been used on various other sites.
It is reasonable to assume that it is highly unlikely that CO2 concentrations would be higher than todays levels, any time since the last ice age. This is because when the Earth cools, CO2 is absorbed by the worlds oceans and permafrost (known fact, unlike computer models predicting exponential warming). It is then released when they melt/warm again. Hence, the correlation between temperature and CO2. Although there's a correlation, it's important to look at the causation.

Did CO2 drive temperature in the past? Here's some excerpts from the link above.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
..............................................................................................
The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.



Originally posted by orksonClearly, i didn't equate "pollution" and CO2.

Huh? You said this...

Originally posted by orksonSo, in my opinion, it's NOT untrue or misleading, to say that CO2 is a good marker of the pollution brought by the industrialisation.

So "pollution" is not "pollution brought by the industrialisation"??


Originally posted by orksonWhat I want to outline, is the fact that there MUST be other reasons leading our economical system than only greed and MONEY.
.............................................................................................
It's a shame.
We must stop this madness before it is too late. (Maybe it's allready too late ...)

Exactly. But the fact is, Cap and Trade is merely another extension of "greed and MONEY". Which is why the incorrectly labelled "deniers" won't shut up and accept it. But I wouldn't say it is already too late. If enough people know (and care) then we can change a lot.

"Knowledge is Power" Sir Francis Bacon.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by orkson

Well ...
After that, global warming deniers will shut up, unless they're shameless !
..............


Well after the following I hope you shut up!!, or you are shameless....


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...


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...

Oh,, and btw, before you, or some other GLobal Warmer begins making false claims, there are several dozen research from all over the globe that suport the fact that we are neither in the warmest period, nor the fastest climate change, and there is more than enough evidence that dismisses the claims that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of Climate Change...




top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join