It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by watcher73
I love when threads start off biased.
Do you mean the science that the hacked scientists e-mails now prove was fudged?
Or do you mean the science that shows climate change happening 800 years before co2 rose?
"Countries that fail to help (tackle global warming) should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights," says Clare Short, the former International Development Secretary according to the Guardian.
"If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately," says Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change according to the newspaper.
The Queen urged 53 Commonwealth countries gathered for a summit in Trinidad to forge a common stand on fighting climate change ahead of a world gathering on the matter next month.
Her comments came as key players from outside the Commonwealth membership showed up at this Port of Spain meeting to press for momentum on tackling global warming in the lead-up to a global summit in Copenhagen next month.
"In 2008 and 2009 satellite data showed a growth in Arctic sea ice extension leaving some to reckon global warming was reversing," states a summary of the research. "Contrary to what satellites recently suggested, we are actually speeding up the loss of the remaining, healthy, multi-year sea ice."
The replacement of older, thicker ice with weak first-year ice has been noted by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, one of the leading trackers of the annual ebb and flow of Arctic ice cover. The Colorado-based centre was instrumental in alerting the world in 2007 to the unprecedented meltdown in Arctic sea ice, from 14 million square kilometres that winter to about 4.3 million square kilometres by September 2007.
The study also coincides with rising concern about Canada's long-term environmental strategy — including mitigation of climate change impacts in the North — ahead of the international Copenhagen conference aimed at curbing global carbon emissions.
www.ottawacitizen.com...< br />
The annual rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has more than tripled in this decade, compared to the 1990s, reports an international consortium of scientists, who paint a bleak picture of the Earth’s future unless “CO2 emissions [are] drastically reduced.”
These CO2 emissions increased at a rate of 3.4% per year from 2000 to 2008, in contrast to 1% each year in the previous decade, scientists from the Global Carbon Project report in the current issue of Nature Geoscience. The team comprises some 30 researchers from around the world, including Richard A. Houghton, senior scientist and acting director of the Woods Hole Research Center and Scott C. Doney, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Negotiations at COP-15 in Copenhagen next month will take up this issue in earnest.
The Woods Hole Research Center is an independent, nonprofit institute focused on environmental science, education, and public policy.
We seek to conserve and sustain the planet’s vegetation, soils, water, and climate by clarifying and communicating their interacting functions in support of human well-being and by promoting practical approaches to their management in the human interest.
The Center has projects in the Amazon, the Arctic, Africa, Russia, Alaska, Canada, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic — as well as integrative efforts at continental to global scale — working in collaboration with partners ranging from local NGOs, research centers, and enterprises to national governments and the United Nations.
In a speech to the European Parliament last week Mr Griffin claimed those who warned of climate change were "anti-western intellectual cranks" and described climate change as "a secular religious hysteria".
A BNP spokesman said his appearance in Copenhagen would be a "big opportunity" for the party because "people assume we are only a one-trick pony only interested in race and immigration".
Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said Mr Griffin's views were "irresponsible and wrong", adding: "He will not be part of the formal Copenhagen negotiations and rightly he will not be listened to by anyone with any credibility who is part of these negotiations."
I'd LOVE it if it were all to be proven a hoax. I'd rest easier knowing my kids and their kids will have a good life. Hell, I hope the next seven generations will have a good life.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Sorry I'm late to the party.
This conference is nothing more than a confirmation of success on an agenda. I would bet good money (as many in power already have) that nothing of new scientific significance will come out of it. This is political, as opposed to scientific. To phrase this in terns used earlier in the thread:
Science = the quest for knowledge (facts).
Politics = the quest for power over others.
Science needs no conferences. Scientists world over have the ability to review work done by others at their convenience, and typically communicate with each other regularly. Just as you and I can communicate here, even though separated by thousands of miles and vast expanses of ocean, how much more so can scientists communicate?
Politics does need conferences.
Copenhagan, to put it bluntly, is a rush to cement regulation. Global Warming has an expiration date, and it is rapidly approaching as evidence of aq reversal in the recent warming trend is beginning to show.
Such evidence can only be covered up for so long (although I do have to complement TPTB on their ability to maintain such cover until the last moment).
Now it is make or break for energy taxation/regulation based on CO2 as the veil grows thin. This conference will no doubt be rife with scare tactics that will make SyFy's TV show look tame by comparison.
So be of good cheer, masqua. The planet will not melt.
All they want is your money, and your obedience.
Well, they do want your air conditioner...
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I can also tell you what won't come out of the conference:
- Any mention of the 'Climategate' leaks.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
No mention of volcanic activity under the Arctic.
posted: 27 June 2008
New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.
Hidden 2.5 miles (4,000 meters) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes are up to a mile (2,000 meters) in diameter and a few hundred yards tall. They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.
With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun. Scientists don't see any significant connection, however.
"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."
Scientists have conferences all the time.
Science and politics are intricately intertwined.
If the actions of one country impacts the health and welfare of another, then the governments of the two will use the facts (science) surrounding the untenable situation to come to an agreement on how to tackle the problem. For instance, if the water in Lake Superior is drained off to accomodate irrigation further south and it is in excess of the amounts which rivers/precipitation add to Lake Superior, then there will be a discussion between the USA and Canada, via politicians, to attempt to keep things balanced. What will be brought to bear in such discussions are the facts and measurements supplied by scientists.
If there is ANY threat to future generations, I'd prefer that it is clearly identified. 'Agendas', based on falsified information, should be found out and bashed into a fine powder. I want facts, not agendas.
Having been an active participant in the production of electricity for more than 30 years, it has been obvious that the 'grid' is continually at risk and needs better systems of production and distribution.
If there is going to be a restriction on travelling/transportation, it mostly will be the cost of a gallon of gasoline and the taxes added to them.
If a Canadian mining company, active in a South American rain forest, clearcuts 1000 square miles to remove copper through open pit mining, then perhaps discussion is required.
The disparity between developed and developing countries is rapidly closing. The most promising economies are no longer in the west, but in central Asia (India) and the far east (China).
Please, show me the data, not from some antiGW blogster, but from a credible source.
There are now 30 years of satellite data on global temperature. The graph below shows the University of Alabama Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit (UAH MSU) results for the period 1978 to 2008.
Please, don't patronize this old fart. I've been around more than one block in my life and the turnip truck I fell off of has long ago gone to the scrapyard.
So, what's different today? Hasn't it always been that way?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
The conferences you mention do nothing except promote PR relations from the scientific community. Discoveries are not made sitting around talking, but rather by independent research, which is then vetted by other scientists recreating that research.
...when you realize the depths some politicians will stoop to in order to further an agenda, then you realize the possibility of having control through corrupted/inaccurate knowledge. In simpler terms, control through ignorance via control of knowledge.
That scares the pants off me.
There is too much at stake for the scientists to become involved in politics.
...do we know what the actual science is showing before the adjustments? Simple logic will show that there are many reasonable causes of temperature fluctuations that do not include CO2, yet what is the commonly assumed reason? CO2.
I tend to weigh on the side of caution. And of a conspiratorial angle, of course.
And that cost will affect the prices and availability of everything you or I purchase. Shipping costs are always included in the final cost of products, and there is typically a tremendous amount of that shipping involved. From the shipping of raw materials, to the shipping of components to factories for assembly, to the shipping between factory and warehouse, warehouse and retail, and finally from retail warehouses to the stores themselves, those energy taxes will add up to make living much more expensive than it is today.
And hybrid vehicles cannot propel 40 tons, at least not at this time.
Yes, it would be required IMO. But I am waiting to see if any agreements coming out of this conference are focused on deforestation or on CO2. Until I am shown otherwise, I will put my money on CO2.
Cap & Trade, the primary focus of environmentalists at this time, does not include deforestation (although I would say it should). Any attempt to include offsets based on stewardship of forested areas is being met with heated opposition from environmentalists and politicians.
On second thought, I will challenge the above.
In the second post of this thread is a statement ON the COP15 website where the hacked emails are discussed.
The question would be how much effect that the acivity in the 1100miles of this ridge really has on the total arctic ice cap.
...it is quite a piece from both the NE & NW 'passages'.
Also, how does this account for the receding glaciers on Greenland itself?
It'll be interesting to see if this is brought up during the conference.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Elementary thermodynamics agrees with this real-world observation. The specific heat of water (measure of energy needed to raise the temperature) is much higher than that of air; indeed, to actually melt ice requires an input of energy not only enough to raise its temperature above the melting point, but to overcome the latent heat of fusion of the ice. Air temperature increases of a few degrees simply cannot account for the melting that has been occurring, and that assumes there is an increase in average temperatures(which there has not been appreciably in the last decade).
Do explosive volcanic eruptions on the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean contribute to the melting of the Arctic ice cap?
No, not at all. The Arctic Ocean is a huge reservoir of water that can readily absorb and disperse the heat and volatile gases from the volcanic eruptions at the seafloor
During many Arctic expeditions, scientists have studied the movement of water, heat, and chemicals in the depths of the Arctic Ocean . They have found that heat and other emissions from the Arctic seafloor do not rise much higher than 500 to 1000 meters up from the ocean bottom. The volcanoes under the Arctic sea ice are 3,000 to 4,000 meters (approximately 2.5 miles) below.
There's something else going on. It can't all be explained through volcanism.
If you can find a site, as credible as Woods Hole, which has information contrary to what they say, I'll change my mind.