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.

 

Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C rise

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C rise


www.guardian.co.uk

Nomadic Turkana pastoralists at a dried out dam in Kenya. A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern review. Photograph: Stephen Morrison/EPA

The emissions cuts offered so far at the Copenhagen climate change summit would still lead to global temperatures rising by an average of 3C, according to a confidential UN analysis obtained by the Guardian.

With the talks entering the final 24 hours on a knife-edge, the emergence of the document seriously undermines the statements by governmen
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Just to let you guys know, 3C, even 2C, would be a catastrophic change.

But what are they doing at Copenhagen?

Obama isn't a scientist is he?

The owners of this world don't care about us.

If they're not talking about the science then are they talking about the possible profits involved?



www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
These catastrophes are going to happen regardless of any Climate meeting.
It is how the globe works, warm and cold, yet the people never learn from it.

I dont think giving the world elite all our cash is going to do one bit of good.
After all, the Data is made up and fake, so chillax with the fearmongering..

Actuall data shows a Dicline ( hmm, some one was talking about 'hiding' this bit.) and the Co2 they are talking about comes mostly from the oceans.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Rather than spending (WASTING) billions of dollars on so called "cutting emissions" of CO2, how about doing something even more practical? Planting trees!
1 million trees would make a bigger difference than money for our planet, wouldn't you say? There are so many better ways to help the planet, and throwing money at the problem isn't going to cut it!
You'd think these "intelligent" people at the UN and in Copenhagen would actually think, but no. They would rather spend their time on nebulous ideas of reducing CO2 by cutting emissions. So we cut CO2, it still is going to stay in the air. How about removing it? I'd rather have my money going to that.

The CO2 will remain, the temps will still rise. And the Copenhagen group will scratch their heads and wonder why didn't it work. They don't think very far ahead. And they dont want to admit when they goof up. This just shows it. Plant trees doggone it!



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


You have been filled so full of lies and false information that I'm surprised you can even type a legible sentence on the subject.

"Actual evidence" points to overall warming, and strong freak climate shifts. What is being "suppressed" is a load of horse crap - "climategate" is nothing more than actual scientists trying to keep false information from getting smothered into the brains of people such as yourself.

But then one remembers that this is America, where 40% of the people will believe anything their bible tells them over anything science proves, so I guess i can't be too surprised



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Yes. Trees are well-known for their ability to grow in places with no water.

The problem at Copenhagen is that the scientists aren't the ones calling the shots. A lot of genital-waving political blowhards, most of whom are still stuck in the bronze age scientifically, are.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Actual evidence does point to overall warming. It also points to warming and cooling throughout earth's history.
You're right though there is a lot of bs to scan through.


[edit on 19-12-2009 by heyo]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Your just plain wacked in your head..
The Co2 Warming scam is just that, a Scam.
With an ounce of brains, you would know filling up the atlantic ocean with Co2 containers dont solve any thing.

We need the Co2 up here where the fokking trees are...
Not down in the ocean...

Schtick your head back down in the sand, okey ! Or , try not watching Xfactor too much...

[edit on 19/12/2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Actual evidence does point to overall warming. It also points to warming and cooling throughout earth's history.


That it does. However this is where application of logic comes into play. In order to believe that this is "completely natural" you have to believe that humans are magically incapable of changing anything about hte planet. Considering that the vast majority of the Sahara and middle eastern deserts are the product of nothing more complicated than people and their goats, I'm really going to have a hard toime buying that industrial-level introduction of carbon into the atmosphere paired with similar levels of deforestation and oceanic pollution is going to have absolutely no effect. Especially when every model and experiment run says the exact opposite.


It shows the surface of the earth heating faster than the troposphere, which is contrary to what would happen if co2 was causing the warming.


No, actually it's not. Just 'cause you found a big word like "troposphere" doesn't mean the argument you found it in is valid.

Some people these days.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I wouldn't say it's a very big word, or even difficult to understand. After some thought, you'll notice I took it out due to the fact that it's shaky as far as evidence goes, and did so before your response.
Some of us would like to get to the bottom of this whole thing, and are weighing the b.s. put forth by either side. It's unfortunate that you cannot do the same thing, ever, without insulting people's intelligence.



[edit on 19-12-2009 by heyo]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
One just cant take the climate data as good when it is proven bogus. Even NASA have been busted in manupilating data, such as satallite readings,they took mesurements from cities which gives higher temps.

And why do people think the co2 is poisonous gass? It is an natural ingredient in our atmosphere, but it is in very small amounts..
Think about that, grown humans actually believing they are breathing out Bad Poison to the planet...

[edit on 19/12/2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
We already know the elite don't care one bit about the environment. Just look at all the carbon being pumped into the atmosphere connected to this meeting in Copenhagen. Just look at how the 'Manmade Global Warming' hero, Al Gore Jr, runs his life with his private jets and energy gobbling house. The real question is will the agreements reached in this meeting further their goals of total control over all the world's peoples? That's their true motivation in this global fiasco, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
climate change is very real ... the world gets warmer and then colder and then warmer...

in the middle ages we had wineries and grew grapes in scotland (cant do that today, its too cold) and then things started cooling down till we had the small ice age where the themes froze over (that was what ? 200 years ago?) and then things got warmer untill they are the way they are today. Were still in a very cool dip all things considered, and in the last few years the trend of warming has reversed and its getting colder again. The world and evironment is an ever changing system. There is no one temperature the world should be at, its a fluid system and its been going on since before we came down from the trees.

The question of whether or not man made CO2 is responsible for any of the change is highly debaitable, and if the scientists in charge of showing that trend have been lying and falsifying information and vilifying people who disagree then its not a very convincing case for man driven global warming.

We shouldnt pollute, we shouldnt emit more co2 and junk than we have too but above all we shouldnt suck money out of people for something that is only said to be their fault by liers. If they want to tax us it had better be for a legitimate reason.

If its a conspiracy or not, bs'ing money out of people aint cool, especialy by the people who are meant to have our best interests at heart.

~TR



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


heh, i never said plant trees in water did I?

Hows about algae? large farms of algae wouldnt hurt would it? those suckers suck up CO2 like nobody's business.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a 3C raise in global temperatures...

ok OP, please back up your statement that a 3C mean increase of GTs would be catastrophic. and i dont mean post a link and say "because this thing says so"

i mean really dig into it and explain how a 3C rise in temps would be catastrophic.

and let me be clear, i dont mean tell me that CO2 causes GWing, or what is producing CO2...



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   



That it does. However this is where application of logic comes into play. In order to believe that this is "completely natural" you have to believe that humans are magically incapable of changing anything about hte planet. Considering that the vast majority of the Sahara and middle eastern deserts are the product of nothing more complicated than people and their goats, I'm really going to have a hard toime buying that industrial-level introduction of carbon into the atmosphere paired with similar levels of deforestation and oceanic pollution is going to have absolutely no effect. Especially when every model and experiment run says the exact opposite.


yeah which mosel and what is it based on? i could run a model over the next few months using only data from december to may and show that the climate is "burning up" too. in fact i could even use those trends and project a climate disaster.

the fact of the matter is that we have had large global temperature swings over the last million or so years. MMGW is "backed up" by low resolution global scale climatic models that are using only the last few thousands of years as a data pool.


No, actually it's not. Just 'cause you found a big word like "troposphere" doesn't mean the argument you found it in is valid.

Some people these days.


say there little fella, instead of insulting this guy and trying to make us all think your so smart because you called troposphere a big word, try to explain why they are wrong and help the real information shine through the trash...

Heyo:

the surface of the earth and the troposphere heating at different paces happens all the time. This is because the heating mechanisms are different. the surface of our dirtball and the layer of air that is "touching" it (the molecular boundary layer) is heated through radiation and subsequent convection. the planetary boundary layer and free atmosphere (the rest of the troposphere) is heated through mechanical and turbulent mixing, and heat exchanges through some convection and the latent heat process.

CO2 is indeed a green house gas, that is that it absorbs long wave energy spectrums that our earth emits, and it does not interfere with the shorter wave radiation of our sun. therfore, the energy gets in but not out.

TO ALL:

any scientist can tell you that having data that says the CO2 ppm and the mean global temperature are rising and at the same time means squat.

all this says is either

a) Increasing CO2 is causing an increase in temperature
b) Increasing temperature is causing an increase in CO2
c) an outside and unseen variable is causing a coincidal increase in CO2 and Mean global temps.

show me something that not onle specifically states that humans, who inhabit less than 30% of the earths surface, and whom out of that area has industrialised less than half of that, has not only caused a dramatic increase in CO2, BUT the increase in the very minor amounts of CO2 (which is a very very small portion of our atmospheric make up)has directly caused the increase in global temperatures.

you cant do it and it doesnt even make sense!

what the heck caused the increase in temps and CO2 that brought us out of the little ice age BEFORE they had coal factories, shipping lanes, and cars?

oh yeah, there were more cows farting i suppose...

AND

to all of you who are down with them saying that CO2 is a deadly gas. this means that every walking human will be a biohazardous poison farm, and so much for keeping those precious plants alive...



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

~Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.


There is no science other than political science that backs man-made global warming.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Mini ice age took hold of Europe in months



JUST months - that's how long it took for Europe to be engulfed by an ice age. The scenario, which comes straight out of Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow, was revealed by the most precise record of the climate from palaeohistory ever generated.

Around 12,800 years ago the northern hemisphere was hit by the Younger Dryas mini ice age, or "Big Freeze". It was triggered by the slowdown of the Gulf Stream, led to the decline of the Clovis culture in North America, and lasted around 1300 years.

Until now, it was thought that the mini ice age took a decade or so to take hold, on the evidence provided by Greenland ice cores. Not so, say William Patterson of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and his colleagues.

The group studied a mud core from an ancient lake, Lough Monreagh, in western Ireland. Using a scalpel they sliced off layers 0.5 to 1 millimetre thick, each representing up to three months of time. No other measurements from the period have approached this level of detail.

Carbon isotopes in each slice revealed how productive the lake was and oxygen isotopes gave a picture of temperature and rainfall. They show that at the start of the Big Freeze, temperatures plummeted and lake productivity stopped within months, or a year at most. "It would be like taking Ireland today and moving it up to Svalbard" in the Arctic, says Patterson, who presented the findings at the BOREAS conference in Rovaniemi, Finland, on 31 October.

"This is significantly shorter than what has been suggested before, but it is plausible," says Derek Vance of the University of Bristol, UK. Hans Renssen, a climate researcher at Vrije University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, says recent findings from Greenland ice cores indicate the Younger Dryas event may have happened in one to three years. Patterson's results confirm this was a very sudden change, he says.

The mud slices from the end of the Big Freeze show that it took around two centuries for the lake and climate to recover.

Patterson says that sudden climate switches like the Big Freeze are far from unusual in the geological record. The Younger Dryas was brought about when a glacial lake covering most of north-west Canada burst its banks and poured into the North Atlantic and Arctic OceansMovie Camera. The huge flood diluted the salinity-driven North Atlantic Ocean mega-currents, including the Gulf Stream, and stalled it. Two studies published in 2006 show that the same thing happened again 8200 years ago, when the Northern hemisphere went through another cold spell.

Some climate scientists have suggested that the Greenland ice sheet could have the same effect if it suddenly melts through climate change, but the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded this was unlikely to happen this century.

Patterson's team have now set their sights on even more precise records of historical climate. They have built a robot able to shave 0.05 micrometre slivers along the growth lines of fossilised clam shells, giving a resolution of less than a day. "We can get you mid-July temperatures from 400 million years ago," he says.


www.newscientist.com...

Months and this is where we are actually headed.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by watcher73]

[edit on 19-12-2009 by watcher73]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
The arrogance of these people to believe they can control the temperature of an entire world. Historically the period we live in is very cold as we are just coming out of an ice age and no amount of money will be able to stop the forces of nature. Even if we did have the means to attempt such a feat we should not do until we understand our ecosystem and the billions of variables within it.

Humans have a long history of attempting to control nature and getting an unexpected and often negative results. It's our arrogance that makes us believe we are masters of this earth and why we continue to make the same mistakes again and again. Our short life-span gives us little to no insight on a world much older than we can hope to comprehend even if we could agreed on it's age and we can't even do that.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join