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.

 

the Globl Warming alarmists

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I am increasingly confused. It's easy for me, since I am not a scientist or weather guesser, I mean forecaster. (just a joke, relax) But when I start discussing that from what evidence I have seen, it appears that the heating and cooling our Earth has been doing seems to be a cycle and not a man made thing. I am sure we contribute to some short term affects but the planet has been here for a while, and will still be here after we are dust.

When I propose that this is merely a cycle, I get slapped down by the real smart people. The ones who use big words to hide the fact that their information isn't all that credible. Then these same people say things like "the next ice age won't be here for 10,000 years." WTF? That sounds like a cycle to me. Then these same people bring up El nino and La Nina in conversation. For those who don't know what that is, it's a climate cycle of the ocean currents that carries warmer and cooler ocean currents and has been proven to affect coastal weather. Yet another cycle. If all these cycles exist, is it even remotely possible that what we are in the middle of is a cycle?

Please explain your position is small easy to understand words so everyone here can understand weather or not you have a clue.




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Great points network dude. I think Global Climate Fear is the new religion of some. For some reason they want us to all tithe to their new god in the form of Global Change taxes. Seems strange since they cannot really prove that the earth is going to continue warmng and they don't know what the negative effects will really be. But I guess we are expected to bend over to the new Climate Gods.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I posted a thread about this recently. I mentioned that the internet is a horrible place to find good information on this topic. To understand, you should spend a couple days at a library doing some solid research. . . or believe what i say on my thread.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
from what i hear everything is part of a cycle from small things like local weater, to the creation of our universe

www.dailygalaxy.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Well said network dude!
Some people act like climate has always been stable except for the last 100 years (or at least until people had automobiles). The truth is, the Earth has been going through cycles of climate change for billions of years and will continue to do so regardless of whether humans are here or not.

That's the way Mother Nature works. And we are a part of Mother Nature and not some separate entity.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
thanks for the replys. I have been looking for information to substantiate the idea that this is another cycle by trying to find core sample data. That to me seems like a logical way to see what has happened with regards to the climate in the distant past. Taking into account things like volcanic eruptions, wind, and rain data. I found a few things with ice core samples of glaciers and it appeared to show just exactly what I was looking for. While that was very convenient, I am always open to find out I am wrong. I am just not going to be convinced by more lies given to push an agenda. Things like taking pictures of polar bears on melting ice chunks in summer and claiming they are dieing due to their environment shrinking. I want truth, not agenda.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The "Carbon Credit (or whatever credit, insert your problem here)" Scam is a Solution waiting for a believable problem to fund a world government.

It DOESN'T matter if Global Warming is real or not because there is no plan to really do a thing about it.

Carbon Credits will not take a single ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere and everyone with a brain knows this. The people with the pocketbooks (who plan to swell those pocketbooks and power to unbelievable proportions) have convinced the environmentalist sheep to worship their carbon god in order to extend that power and money base globally.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


oh no! you are not going to do something logical and ask us to follow the money are you? Because that might prove that some agenda driven idiots have fooled the masses in order to get richer. (for the life of me I can't understand how much money is enough for some folks)

Just like when cops look at a crime, motive & opportunity. Both are crystal clear.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


It may well be a cycle.

Frankly, I gave up long ago on the issue of causation. The 'facts' have been so thoroughly obscured by political nonsense, I have no clue what to believe anymore.

But that is not to say there aren't equally compelling reasons to be very concerned about our future.

Cycle of not, profound changes appear to be occurring that may really upset the applecart. As I have said elsewhere, while everyone is tripping over themselves for the opportunity to express their political belief on the subject, we could be missing the very real storm clouds brewing on the horizon.


Just my $0.02.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but after watching An Inconvienent Truth, I simply cannot agree with this. The one thing that really frightened me is when they showed vintage pictures of various glaciers from around the world, and then compared them to modern pictures of the same glaciers... they were almost completely gone! And Gore did mention that there are indeed hot and cold cycles of the climate that span tens of thousands of years, but we have inadvertantly "supercharged" a warm cycle, so that by 2100, it will be hotter than it has been for the last 65 million years.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
'The Great Global Warming Swindle' breaks down the man made global warming myth quite handily and shows AL Gores peice of fancy for what it is - dogma and politics before science.

The science is not settled, carbon is not a toxin, the planet is no longer warming and the sun IS the main factor in climate change.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xammu
 


the sad thing about Gore's movie is that he used a lot of sensationalism to push his agenda. Taking pictures of glaciers in the summer time and telling people they are melting. Really? Ice melts in the summer? he didn't show you the same glacier in March. Fortunately real science exists and you can look at the ice progress in studies and pictures. It seems the arctic ice is decreasing and the Antarctic ice is increasing. Why, I don't know, but nobody else seems to either. But having the climate change in certain areas, doesn't prove that we are on a collision course to oblivion just yet. It could be ocean currents, or it could be sun spots, it could be lots of things, but enough evidence seems to exist that my flatulence is not the cause. (my wife may disagree)



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I feel that it is a cycle simply because it makes the most sense to me right now. But you are absolutely correct. This is not nor should it have ever been a partisan issue. I am afraid that if and when the official agenda is proven to be false, people will stop worrying about the environment at all because they are tired of being lied to.

Kind of like how nobody worries about alternative fuels until Gas hits $4.75 a gallon. Then when it goes back to $2.30 gas is just fine. Just think of how clean the air would be if everyone drove hydrogen cars with no emissions. Think about being able to go to LA and take a breath of fresh air.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Al gore did not want to admit that the sun mostly controlled the earths weather patterns, enough said.

Need we say more.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
thanks for the replys. I have been looking for information to substantiate the idea that this is another cycle by trying to find core sample data. That to me seems like a logical way to see what has happened with regards to the climate in the distant past. Taking into account things like volcanic eruptions, wind, and rain data. I found a few things with ice core samples of glaciers and it appeared to show just exactly what I was looking for. While that was very convenient, I am always open to find out I am wrong. I am just not going to be convinced by more lies given to push an agenda. Things like taking pictures of polar bears on melting ice chunks in summer and claiming they are dieing due to their environment shrinking. I want truth, not agenda.


Ice core samples are only a short term measurement of climate(they can only go back 3 million years.
A more accurate sampling method is sea bed sediments and the sea life in them these go back over 65 million years and show earth has been a lot warmer in most of these samples.
www.globalwarmingart.com...:65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...

Who was burning what during the period from the Paleocene to the Miocene
that made the world so warm, It was not humans we we not around yet.
we are in a ice age and it will END someday and global warming may just be the start of the end of this ice age.
I for one would like to see a global warmer PROVE that this is NOT just the end of the ice age we are in.

And yes we are in a ice age as a ice age is by geological definition is any time the earth has year round ice at the poles.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Thanks so much for the links and the education. I thought 3 million years was a good enough peak into history to see the cycle activity. But as I said before, I don't mind getting schooled as long as it makes me better informed. Thanks again.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I am increasingly confused. It's easy for me, since I am not a scientist or weather guesser, I mean forecaster. (just a joke, relax) But when I start discussing that from what evidence I have seen, it appears that the heating and cooling our Earth has been doing seems to be a cycle and not a man made thing. I am sure we contribute to some short term affects but the planet has been here for a while, and will still be here after we are dust.

When I propose that this is merely a cycle, I get slapped down by the real smart people. The ones who use big words to hide the fact that their information isn't all that credible. Then these same people say things like "the next ice age won't be here for 10,000 years." WTF? That sounds like a cycle to me.


This is essentially where you are stuck in a logical fallacy.

There are natural cycles and variations, there is not one person of any significance in the climate arena I know of who thinks otherwise. To suggest as many do here that because the current science suggests a human influence now means that past changes must also be human-caused is a profound fallacy, very lame, and an obvious strawman (dinosaurs in SUVs, rofl rofl).

There are natural cycles and there are human effects. Both can exist independently. They are also not mutually exclusive. Both can exist at the same time - which is the actual case for climate at this point in time.

Similarly, we can see a mammal's circadian cycle as natural. A mammal sleeps and wakes in a close relationship with features of the natural world. It's a cycle! I can still pump bunnies full of barbituates and mess with their cycle. I could put them in an artifical environment and take its natural cycle completely out of kilter. If I proposed that pumping a bunny full of barbs can mess with its circadian cycle, your style of logic would then want to suggest that all circadian cycles past and present are also influenced by people pumping bunnies full of barbs. Alternatively, the logic would rely on the fact that before humans circadian cycles were natural and deny the fact that I was pumping bunny rabbits full of barbs. It's a ridiculous argument, but you appear blind to its inherent fallacy.

Once you realise that both human and natural influences can exist, even when before humans existed mammals circadian cycles climate cycles were natural, then the question focuses on the cause of my sleeping bunnies the current warming during a period of intense my barb dosing of bunnies human industrialisation. And the science is pretty damn clear. There is a human influence. It includes various aspects of human activity, but the most significant is shown to be GHG emissions.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by network dude
I am increasingly confused. It's easy for me, since I am not a scientist or weather guesser, I mean forecaster. (just a joke, relax) But when I start discussing that from what evidence I have seen, it appears that the heating and cooling our Earth has been doing seems to be a cycle and not a man made thing. I am sure we contribute to some short term affects but the planet has been here for a while, and will still be here after we are dust.

When I propose that this is merely a cycle, I get slapped down by the real smart people. The ones who use big words to hide the fact that their information isn't all that credible. Then these same people say things like "the next ice age won't be here for 10,000 years." WTF? That sounds like a cycle to me.


This is essentially where you are stuck in a logical fallacy.

There are natural cycles and variations, there is not one person of any significance in the climate arena I know of who thinks otherwise. To suggest as many do here that because the current science suggests a human influence now means that past changes must also be human-caused is a profound fallacy, very lame, and an obvious strawman (dinosaurs in SUVs, rofl rofl).

There are natural cycles and there are human effects. Both can exist independently. They are also not mutually exclusive. Both can exist at the same time - which is the actual case for climate at this point in time.


Just how exactly are you so sure about this? Cycles have happened in the past causing the exact situation we are in right now, but this time it's different? This is the reason I have such a hard time believing any information you present. You think that you are right and everyone else is delusional. And seem completely incapable of entertaining any new data because the guys on the tree hugger site you frequent try to discredit anyone who doesn't fall into their agenda.




Similarly, we can see a mammal's circadian cycle as natural. A mammal sleeps and wakes in a close relationship with features of the natural world. It's a cycle! I can still pump bunnies full of barbituates and mess with their cycle. I could put them in an artifical environment and take its natural cycle completely out of kilter. If I proposed that pumping a bunny full of barbs can mess with its circadian cycle, your style of logic would then want to suggest that all circadian cycles past and present are also influenced by people pumping bunnies full of barbs. Alternatively, the logic would rely on the fact that before humans circadian cycles were natural and deny the fact that I was pumping bunny rabbits full of barbs. It's a ridiculous argument, but you appear blind to its inherent fallacy.


sorry, I seem to have lost interest in your apparent interest in getting rabbits high. I have no idea what you are rambling about.



Once you realise that both human and natural influences can exist, even when before humans existed mammals circadian cycles climate cycles were natural, then the question focuses on the cause of my sleeping bunnies the current warming during a period of intense my barb dosing of bunnies human industrialisation. And the science is pretty damn clear. There is a human influence. It includes various aspects of human activity, but the most significant is shown to be GHG emissions.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by melatonin]


The biggest problem I have with GHG emmisions being a large part of your equation is the volcanic eruptions. One eruption like Mt. St. Hellens. here is a bit of data about that eruption. You can't spout the junk about GHG without factoring in things like that.

And while I was reading that acticle I found this:

Ash column generated by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines Luzon volcanic arc, on June 12, 1991. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo occurred three days later on June 15, 1991, and was one of the largest eruptions of this century. The climactic event lasted about 9 hours and erupted over a cubic mile of rock material. It injected a 20- million ton sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere to an altitude of more than 20 miles. The climactic Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century, although smaller than the estimated disturbances from the eruptions of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883. Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from man-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to the lowest ozone levels ever recorded to date in the stratosphere.



So when you see that the earth cooled 1.3 degrees because of a single volcano, then it heated back up. And then you wonderful people claimed "Global Warming"
It was actually "Global Equalization".

Are you aware of how many volcanoes erupt under the sea? The GHG are actually "gases" and what do we know about gas? if it is lighter than air it will rise. So where in all your data is that information factored in?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
Just how exactly are you so sure about this? Cycles have happened in the past causing the exact situation we are in right now, but this time it's different? This is the reason I have such a hard time believing any information you present. You think that you are right and everyone else is delusional. And seem completely incapable of entertaining any new data because the guys on the tree hugger site you frequent try to discredit anyone who doesn't fall into their agenda.


Yes, this time it is different. In the past there weren't human influences emitting billions of tonnes of a major GHG every year, concreting ecosystems, slashing and burning forests etc etc.

lol, I don't frequent any 'treehugger' site. Do you mean woodfortrees.org? It's just an online data repository that allows presentation of the most recent climate datasets. The alternative is to download the files and do the same in Excel or a stats package. Just a convenient site.

'Can't see the wood for the trees' might be something you want to ponder.


sorry, I seem to have lost interest in your apparent interest in getting rabbits high. I have no idea what you are rambling about.


lol, thought it was clear enough. No rabbits were harmed in the development of that analogy.

Sorry you can't think your way through it.


The biggest problem I have with GHG emmisions being a large part of your equation is the volcanic eruptions. One eruption like Mt. St. Hellens. here is a bit of data about that eruption. You can't spout the junk about GHG without factoring in things like that.


Volcanoes emit a fraction of the CO2 humans do every year.

But if you mean the effect of sulphates, yeah, they are important enough to be included in models like the one Hansen used to make predictions into this century. Less than 6 months after the Pinatubo eruption Hansen submitted a paper from a model run predicting its effects on climate. And they predicted it well.


Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption

Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption
James Hansen

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York

Andrew Lacis

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York

Reto Ruedy

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York

Makiko Sato

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York

We use the GISS global climate model to make a preliminary estimate of Mount Pinatubo's climate impact. Assuming the aerosol optical depth is nearly twice as great as for the 1982 El Chichon eruption, the model forecasts a dramatic but temporary break in recent global warming trends. The simulations indicate that Pinatubo occurred too late in the year to prevent 1991 from becoming one of the warmest years in instrumental records, but intense aerosol cooling is predicted to begin late in 1991 and to maximize late in 1992. The predicted cooling is sufficiently large that by mid 1992 it should even overwhelm global warming associated with an El Nino that appears to be developing, but the El Nino could shift the time of minimum global temperature into 1993. The model predicts a return to record warm levels in the later 1990s. We estimate the effect of the predicted global cooling on such practical matters as the severity of the coming Soviet winter and the dates of cherry blossoming next spring, and discuss caveats which must accompany these preliminary simulations.

Received 3 October 1991; accepted 17 October 1991


You seem to think that climate scientists don't focus on such issues. Hansen's model was put together in the late 80s. That's 20 years ago, and his run from the late 80s includes intermittent volcanic eruptions. Although the model run had a volcano in 1995, rather than 1991.


So when you see that the earth cooled 1.3 degrees because of a single volcano, then it heated back up. And then you wonderful people claimed "Global Warming"
It was actually "Global Equalization".


Yeah, the sulphates from volcanoes lead to cooling of the climate. Those are the sort of natural influences, pretty unpredictable ones, that are well-known. You still don't seem to get the point. Even if a volcano goes boom tomorrow, it doesn't negate the influence of human effects. It would just offset them, they are still there. The cooling is temporary.


Are you aware of how many volcanoes erupt under the sea? The GHG are actually "gases" and what do we know about gas? if it is lighter than air it will rise. So where in all your data is that information factored in?


We release twice the amount of CO2 required to account for the yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. 28 billion tonnes of the stuff every year. Half of it is absorbed by ocean and land sinks.

These same undersea volcanoes would have been knocking around for the last 2000 years yet CO2 levels were very stable - it's only since industrialisation that levels of various GHGs have started to increase rapidly.

We are the added extra here, not long-established undersea volcanoes.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


i believe in global warming. i am even fairly convinced that human beings have something to do with it. however, it doesn't concern me. anyone who looks at this problem rationally would see that no amount of regulation and taxation on carbon is going to reverse this trend. a rational observer also realizes that adaptation to the changing environment would be much more efficient then calling the modern world to a halt.

the choice of global warming isn't to 'believe' or not to believe it is a choice between a modern, free world with rational market based solutions to problems and one that involves shutting down the best, free problem solving methods the human race has ever known in exchange for taxes and restrictions on freedom.

in short, even if it is real. so what?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join