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? Meh, not so much. . .

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Source
news.bbc.co.uk...


This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.



And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.


So the world won't end. Oceans won't rise up, swallow cities, cute little polar bears can frolic in the snow.

But we may freeze to death. . . so we're still doooooooooooomed, doomed I tells ya', doomed!





I wonder what the cap and trade crowd will do with this?

My guess? Ignore it, as usual.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



I wonder what the cap and trade crowd will do with this?


They will ignore it. Otherwise, what happens to their grand money-making scheme?

Global warming. Yet another hoax perpetrated on gullible folks to rake in the big bucks.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 
I was about to post this sme article and noticed your thread/

s&f

The parts that really caught my attention were the oceanic cycles (which are solar-driven, of course).


According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."


Great find.

Maybe the growing reality of the $$$ drivers behind "AGW" and GHG reduction is causing people to stop and re-assess the natural cycles over which man will never have control.

The best we can hope for is to learn how to "ride out" the extremes
and not poison our surrounding s while we do so.

IMHO.

jw




[edit on 10-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Considering that this has been one of the coldest years on record... and certainly the coldest year in MY life-time... and considering that all of the "depleted glaciers" got almost enough snowfall last winter to make up for a decade of deficiencies...

Yeah. I really don't believe in global warming.

Did you know that the "data" that supports global warming is based on core samples from just one small grove of trees?

IF man is making a difference in global temperature it isn't making that much difference... yet. I do think that we need to tone down on the pollution. I just think we have WAY more time than predicted.

In other word... don't go and paint your roof white just yet. We have some time.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
So what you guys are saying is ... we should pollute more?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
So what you guys are saying is ... we should pollute more?


How did you come up with that question? Gosh, SD, I gave you more credit than that. How you could infer that those of us that don't believe in global warming, are all for polluting, is silly.

I believe in being a good steward of the earth. One of my biggest pet peeves is people driving down the road throwing trash out their windows. I recycle, I plant trees, I keep my driving to a minimum on ozone alert days, among other things.

I do not, however, believe in global warming. Too much evidence to the contrary has been posed. Too many times, proponents of global warming have been caught fudging data and, quite simply, lying about facts.

The earth goes through cycles. That's an indisputable fact. I concur with the person (don't know who) that said it's arrogant to think that, we as humans, can somehow affect climate change to the degree that some scientists are claiming.

And no, I'm not going to post sources. I think you're a very smart guy SD, and I'm sure you've read it all before. From both sides. Some people are taken in by all the hype. Some people aren't.

Cap and trade is a pretty good indicator that global warming is all hype intended to turn a buck.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by soldiermom

And no, I'm not going to post sources. I think you're a very smart guy SD, and I'm sure you've read it all before. From both sides. Some people are taken in by all the hype. Some people aren't.


I agree with all that.


But here's the thing ... fact is that even with the best data and scientific knowledge it is next to impossible to establish absolute causality between human activity and global warming or climate change for that mater. However it is just as flawed to believe beyond doubt that the two aren't connected. After all one cannot negate one hypothesis under the premise of incomplete data and embrace another under the very same premise. The fact is that there is valid data to support the former, though it is by no means conclusive.


Cap and trade is a pretty good indicator that global warming is all hype intended to turn a buck.


Keep in mind that that is a somewhat short view of the situation, inasmuch as there will always be someone looking to turn a buck (not necessarily a bad thing btw) ... be it Shell/Exxon or the "green" industry. Chances are anyway that the same folks are behind both.

So what to think?

I look at it this way and hence my original post ... at the lack of conclusive evidence why not pollute as little as possible. Sure someone might make a buck or two off of me but at least I'm not crapping in my living room.



[edit on 10 Oct 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
This is why they changed it to “Climate Change” as the name Global Warming doesn’t fit anymore, just like the name Global Cooling as it was called in the 1970’s didn’t fit in the 80’s.

So, to stop looking stupid they decided to just call it “Climate Change”.

The sad thing is people still believe in the whole “carbon footprint” crap and pay to offset it, seriously, have you seen the website that lets you pay to “offset” your footprint. Lol

People gotta stop watching Al Gore films.

Mikey



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Source
news.bbc.co.uk...


This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.


Didnt 1998 end up being a math error and the warmest year on record is in the 1930's?



[edit on 10-10-2009 by watcher73]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
So what you guys are saying is ... we should pollute more?


Of course not.

Either way, pollution is not a good thing... silly puppy


But this actually kind of points to what Ive been saying for the last couple of years Ive been here. I think with more and more attention on the fragility of the Earth recently, the global warming issue has become blown out of proportion.

Fact is that globally, over the last 2 or so years, the Earth has actually cooled significantly. Wether we will see this trend continue is anyones guess....but in my opinion, I think the global warming issue may have been inaccurate after all

Thanks for this one OP, S & F



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I have some friends who are real beaker and flask type scientists. They aren't connected to either side of the argument monetarily and have been looking into it for some years. They examined the evidence, poured over the particulars, and have also come to the conclusion that the whole man made global warming thing is a total sham.

While they all agreed that the cyclical climate change and influence of water vapor alone (compared to co2 emissions) is not even something that we could control, they did say that the acidity of the oceans is something to be concerned about.

I believe they also speculated that the earth would cool another 5 degrees if we could just control all that hot air spewing from Al Gore's pie hole.


I find it completely hilarious that you can go to a kiosk now at some airports, and pay to "offset" your carbon footprint by giving them money. Apparently they'll take like 85% of that in some cases, go plant a few trees, and KEEP the other 15%!

Yes folks, while there are many things you can do to help reduce pollution, and your own footprint, like weatherproofing, recycling, using low-watt bulbs etc, the whole cap and trade thing is designed by snake oil salesman in order to pollute their pockets with your money.

Did you know that there are companies right now that are getting paid more money to clean up their own mess from making a product than they make on the actual product?
Guess who pays for that.
Sure they may call it "credits", but maybe they think nobody will raise an eyebrow if they don't call it money.

The IPCC doesn't seem to have a problem using manipulated data, and all those "paid" researchers need to have a scenario elevated to the equivalent of a threat to national security. I mean, what would they do if they weren't urgently needed to continue their research?

Like I said in another post, Mr. Gore can take his carbon credit kiosk company and shove it in a warm place.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I look at it this way and hence my original post ... at the lack of conclusive evidence why not pollute as little as possible. Sure someone might make a buck or two off of me but at least I'm not crapping in my living room.


If you're serious about "as little as possible," then maybe you should be "crapping in [your] living room." Environmental costs of water delivery and sewage elimination and treatment far outweigh the harm you'd do in your living room.

And that's not what you said about the posts previous to yours:


So what you guys are saying is ... we should pollute more?


Just a few posts before yours I specifically observed:

"The best we can hope for is to not poison our surroundings."

I saw nothing in any of the other posts before yours even suggesting we should increase pollution.

You seem to equate disbelief in AGW with eagerness to destroy our environment any other way man is capable.

Not logical, and complete misdirection. Poor tactics in any case.

You disappointed soldiermom, who has high expectations of the people who are involved in this issue.

I sort of expected it, though.

jw



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Not logical, and complete misdirection. Poor tactics in any case.


Mmm, you seem a little testy and somewhat defensive ... not quite sure why though as I pimped no side, therefore no "tactics" are required.

I never said that man made global warming wasn't a sham, all I said is that there isn't enough data to come to a solid conclusion either way. The only other thing I said is that either way someone is making money out of it ... and they sure have their soldiers to push their agendas.

Perhaps the wagged tail is unaware of the master it serves.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73

Didnt 1998 end up being a math error and the warmest year on record is in the 1930's?

You are correct, sir. GISS problems.

Steve McIntyre found anomalies, including the placement of weather monitoring stations NEXT TO air conditioning condenser units, that skewed recent data up. After he advised NASA, they revised their web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, and issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here:

data.giss.nasa.gov...

NASA's newly published data set from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) represent deviation from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations throughout the USA.

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.


Good memory!

s4u

jw

[edit on 11-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 
MORE misdirection?
You should know I said nothing in my posts about your position on AGW.
I said nothing on the merits of AGW at all.

I specifically took issue with sly tactics in your misdirection making false statements about the posters previous to you at that point:

So what you guys are saying is ... we should pollute more?


No one said or implied any such thing. You got called on it by soldiermom, and others.

Ignore this if you want, but that doesn't justify YOUR questioning MY motives.

jw

[edit on 11-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
first let me say, I think the global warming thing is questionable.
but, there are a couple of things I would like to throw out in the discussion.
first, where is all the ice cap water going?
water that is held out of the water cycle, aka in bottles, canned food, etc
and one other place, us.
the population of the world is greater than ever in history, we are 98% water, at 200 lbs each...thats a lot of water
also, every night the weather report in every metro area talks about the heat island effect
the shear added surface area vs heat mass changes our local climate
now fill the island with well fed humans sluffing off body heat...
I'd love to calculate the effects of both of these, but don't know how to get real useful data
maybe someone here knows how

dr



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dr dodge
 

first let me say, I think the global warming thing is questionable.


Warming and cooling Have always, and always will take place until solar radiation overwhelms the cycles.


but, there are a couple of things I would like to throw out in the discussion.
first, where is all the ice cap water going?

The "four major food groups" It seems that few people take into account the global land reclamation and reforestation efforts the same organizations that decry AGW (UN-sponsored) are expanding exponentially around the world.

(All in all, I don't think it makes ALL that much difference, but the results ARE measureable.)


water that is held out of the water cycle, aka in bottles, canned food, etc., and one other place, us.
the population of the world is greater than ever in history, we are 98% water, at 200 lbs each...thats a lot of water


Having said what I did above, I don't believe the cumulative effect is significant. We can create LOCAL effects through re-direction of natural flows and water cycles. We do not as a species "absorb" that much; it all gets returned eventually, just in different places.


also, every night the weather report in every metro area talks about the heat island effect -- the shear added surface area vs heat mass changes our local climate
now fill the island with well fed humans sluffing off body heat...


Your innate sense proves right. "Local" effects can be profound. Beyond that, Gaia takes over.

Albuquerque doesn't make it rain in Brainerd.


I'd love to calculate the effects of both of these, but don't know how to get real useful data
maybe someone here knows how


It's been done. Don'y know the sites off the top of my head, but I know that they total body-mass of INSECTS dwarfs that of humans.

Think about that one for a bit, and maybe you'll get a grasp of how insignificant we really are.

AGW is really just hubris gone crazy. Sometimes, we're (collectively) just to full of ourselves.

jw


[edit on 11-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
According to research done by sticking my head out the window not only has this been one of the coldest summers I can remember but they say we are suppose to have snow come tomarrow. Living in Michigan I do recall snow in October since I was about ten, which means thrity years ago. Global warming my frosted hind quarters, its cold.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
It seems logical that this cycle is more complex than we can understand. The scientists are measuring and making guesses, but probably dont have all the variables.



[edit on 11-10-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



It may be a short view of the situation, but I think that pretty much sums up the cap and trade crowd's motivation. Otherwise, why attempt cap and trade? Like you said, there's no verifiable data either way, so why start taxing us on something that doesn't have solid evidence to back the claim?


And, let me say, I hold no grudge against anyone trying to make a buck. Capitalism is a good thing, in my opinion. But not under false pretenses.

It reeks of a money grabbing ploy by the government and the green movement, to further the theft of our tax dollars.

I forgot to add that I do mind people trying to make money off of me based on unsubstantiated claims. We already have enough of that. Don't ya think?


[edit on 10/11/2009 by soldiermom]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join