World on course for hottest year since 1880

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athink
Tbh lets be real, its the waste we burn, fuel we waste and dont forget the cows, where killing the earth, its not good for anyone, im alittle sick of not being able to sleep at night due to the weather.

and if you ask me its to late to change any of this, its our fault, let us take the punishment for it.


Dang cows. Just gosh darn cows. We should go rampage on bovine world wide. Bovine scetology. I am going to eat all the cows that I can. Lets just eat them all up and not breed anymore of these earth threatening beasts.

The aliens have been trying to tell us all along.....by cutting out the rear vent of the bovine. Back on thier home planet the bovine arose and tried to overthrow the planet.




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
So maybe NASA can explain why the arctic Ice is growing in the last three years. In July it's larger than it's ever been since they said it was melting . Where we are in So Cal we are freezing in the summer. 72 deg high when the norm is 90-100? I see a problem here and it ain't warming. We are headed for a mini ice age or worse. Peru is in a state of emergency! Hundreds are dying from the cold and it's snowing in the Amazon.


www.accuweather.com...

www.accuweather.com...



[edit on 27-7-2010 by favouriteslave]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by favouriteslave
So maybe NASA can explain why the arctic Ice is growing in the last three years. In July it's larger than it's ever been.


Arctic sea ice has been in decline for quite a while, both in extent and volume:



It most certainly is not larger than "it's ever been" in either extent or volume in July of this year.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Source

Very interesting. Thanks for the link. I will say, one thing that did catch me eye while reading it was this following statement: "Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists." Ergo, 95% of the respondents weren't specialists in the respected field. Also, it would be handy if they provided names, just so I could double-check a few of them.


For example - the people constantly running around ATS so sure of themselves that it's not a big deal because "climate change is a natural cycle" are the ones who don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. They think the answer is so obvious, but they never bother to consider the fact that in real science you don't just get by with a simple observation - you also need an explanation of that observation.

Exactly. And personally, I think that scientists like Svensmark, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Bernard Bond and Friis-Christensen have come up with good evidence that the climate over the last century is due to natural forcings (PDO, cosmic rays, solar activity, El Nino's, etc).


In the case of the extreme warming of the last century

I wouldn't really describe the warming last century as extreme. It was only 0.7C, which is well-within, established long-term climate trends and much of that 0.7C has been lost in the last decade as temperatures have been in a steady decline. According to the Central England Temperature Record, during the early 1700s temperature rose by 2.2C in just 36 years, which puts the warming last century in perspective.


There is NO explanation other than human influence.

You sure about that? Have you read Svensmark et al 2007 and Soon et al 2009?


There are no 30,000 scientists and 9000 PhD's. Anyone who wants to can add their name to that fake list.

Of about 30,000 signatories they were only able to cite about a dozen whose authenticity might be suspect.


All these stories you heard about "hiding the decline" were just deliberately out of context soundbites that have since been thoroughly debunked.

What do think they meant when they said "hide the decline" then? Seems pretty much self-explanatory to me. If the guys over at the CRU aren't frauds, then they're terrible scientists, because when they were faced with FOIA requests to release their data in which their computer model projections were based, they conveniently 'lost' the raw data.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Cap and trade is not the answer.

I heard that the president doesnt need the house. He can just do it

We'll see soon. Heath care bill and the finanacal bill.

We really should read them and find all of it out!!



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Sorry for the double post

[edit on 27-7-2010 by cosmo740]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
To withhold, distort or otherwise interfere with the truth about the Planetary Core is a Crime Against Humanity - one of the greatest crimes that man can commit.

Money cannot save the Planet. Only Understanding can. Focus on Understanding. It cannot be undone.

P.S. The ability to Understand is called INTELLIGENCE.



[edit on 27-7-2010 by Athink]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
i would object to that blanket statement (burning CxHy will consume oxygen which will then be made available again through photosynthesis, so the real 'winner' is the plant, which can get the needed carbon more easily), but if you took a steel mill, a part of the oxygen comes from ore rather than air and this oxygen is a net gain for the biosphere.


Originally posted by aspx
funny isn't it, burning creating using massive amounts of carbon is actually good for the planet because it creates goddamn oxygen, forests EAT carbon and give out oxygen, so when you fart the tree eats converts the co2 and releases oxygen.




PS: ...don't tell 'em or they will demand money...

==================================================


Originally posted by Athink
To withhold, distort or otherwise interfere with the truth about the Planetary Core



Core? i'm all ears now, what has it got to do with surface temps? are you suggesting the Earth's internal heat fluctuates like the sun?

?

[edit on 2010.7.27 by Long Lance]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Long Lance,
Some people claim that the observable earthquake energy rise is due to "improved equpiment" and/or "increasing the number of seismic stations". This claim cannot be true. Waves from large quakes travel around the globe and are detectable ANYWHERE. Since time of Cold War there is enough seismic stations on Earth to pin-point location of a nuclear explosion (a quake 4.0) within a few km.

Increasing number of seismic stations and better equipment can only be responsible for the increase in the number of "small" quakes being detected. The global energy of "small" earthquakes (below 7.0) increased only by 40% since 1973. In contrast, the global energy of quakes 7.0 and above increased 6 times in the same period. This is not any theory. It is an observable FACT.

What causes an 8-fold increase in Antarctic glacier melting in just 3 years? Sun does not deliver 8 times the energy under the Antarctic ice does it? Some scientists predict that effects of "global warming" will take many decades. Can they explain the increase of the melting rate of Antarctic glaciers 8 times in 3 years? Overheating of the fission heated planetary interior can...

"Climate change" cannnot explain why deep Antarctic Ocean gets less salty and less dense. Overheating of the fission heated planetary interior can... Antarctica is just about the only "heatsink" left available for the planetary interior.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Hey, summer is hot.

Must be global warming.

BUT, now during the summer we have high tempatures and that is an indicator of global warming.

PLEASE!




Summer temperatures which are, globally, higher than they have been--in similar season--over the reliable instrumental temperature record, certainly an 'indicator' of global warming.

In fact, they aren't merely an 'indicator', but the real thing itself.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athink
What causes an 8-fold increase in Antarctic glacier melting in just 3 years? Sun does not deliver 8 times the energy under the Antarctic ice does it? Some scientists predict that effects of "global warming" will take many decades. Can they explain the increase of the melting rate of Antarctic glaciers 8 times in 3 years? Overheating of the fission heated planetary interior can...


And what mechanism would there be to explain this "overheating" that just started?

And the total lack of fission neutrinos which would be very detectable with current technology?



"Climate change" cannnot explain why deep Antarctic Ocean gets less salty and less dense. Overheating of the fission heated planetary interior can... Antarctica is just about the only "heatsink" left available for the planetary interior.


This makes no sense. There is a flux of heat from the inner to outer over all 4 pi steradians of the planetary surface.

The magnitude of this heat flux is tiny next to the heat flux from the Sun. The atmospheric and oceanic interactions with that incoming solar flux overwhelmingly determine the climate. Interior heat is negligible on Earth. And the notion that there is substantial fission reactor at the core (uranium fission from stimulated fission neutrons) is not backed by any evidence, and disproved by the lack of neutrino signal.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Hey, summer is hot.

Must be global warming.


In about three months you'll be back here defending winter against claims that we are slipping into an ice age as record cold hits somewhere in Minnesota.




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   


nd personally, I think that scientists like Svensmark, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Bernard Bond and Friis-Christensen have come up with good evidence that the climate over the last century is due to natural forcings (PDO, cosmic rays, solar activity, El Nino's, etc).


No they haven't. El Nino's aren't forcing, they're internal oceanic waves & associated climate patterns.

People have been aware of Svensmarks' hypotheses for numerous years now and have investigated them theoretically and experimentally. They do not explain the observations.

Likewise with solar forcing. There probably was some in the early 20th century, but more recently little.

The final problem with all these 'other' explanations is that they do NOTHING to challenge the actual observed physics of the greenhouse effect. If you think of reason X it does nothing to turn off proven reason Y. You have to go much further and explain why this means the climate sensitivity is different.

They do nothing to "turn off" the increasing IR emissivity. This greenhouse effect, and its secular change over decades is not a theory. It is an observed, measured fact, and its size is exactly as predicted by the well-understood physics.

The security of this result is far, far, stronger than Svensmarks' implausible theories. Svensmark has not been at all 'suppressed' by the scientific community, after all, he has papers published in Physical Review journals. It's just that virtually all scientists who look at it think that it's wrong, unclear, or greatly insufficient.

It may be important over 20-100 million year ancient timescales prior to humans but it has little import on the current climate.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
mbkennel, everylittle helps, think of Tesco, basicly, the way i see it, is that the sun warms the earth up, think about where this heat is going and whats happening to it. does it just vanish? i reckon it builds up and acts in mass, meaning earthquakes. Earthquakes are going to cause heat trying to rush to the surface, unless im wrong and thinking about this in the wrong idea, which is possible.



[edit on 27-7-2010 by Athink]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
CO2 is causing this too...

Peru declares emergency over cold weather


www.bbc.co.uk...


24 July 2010 Last updated at 04:36 ET

The Peruvian government has declared a state of emergency in more than half the country due to cold weather.

Most of the areas affected are in the south, where temperatures regularly drop below zero centigrade at this time of year.

However, this time temperatures have dropped to as low as -24C.

The state of emergency means regional authorities can dip into emergency funds to provide medicine, blankets and shelter to those most affected.


Burr.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
CO2 is causing this too...

Peru declares emergency over cold weather


www.bbc.co.uk...


24 July 2010 Last updated at 04:36 ET

The Peruvian government has declared a state of emergency in more than half the country due to cold weather.

Most of the areas affected are in the south, where temperatures regularly drop below zero centigrade at this time of year.

However, this time temperatures have dropped to as low as -24C.

The state of emergency means regional authorities can dip into emergency funds to provide medicine, blankets and shelter to those most affected.



Something is just not right. people are blaming BP for the heat waves, surely it wouldn't happen this fast, would it?

And Brrrrr Indeed



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Originally posted by Gorman91
For whatever reason, less sunspots means hotter weather.


That's not right is it? The maunder minimum was a period of very few sunspots, which coincided with the mini ice age in the graph you showed. The correlation works the opposite way round from what you said.

Maunder minimum

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Karilla]


This makes more sense IMO. We will have a M/X-Class Solar Flare just like off of the film "Knowing" - Soon.
x



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

It is all about the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many people believe that the temperature changes because the Earth is closer to the sun in summer and farther from the sun in winter. In fact, the Earth is farthest from the sun in July and is closest to the sun in January! During the summer, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a steep angle. The light does not spread out as much, thus increasing the amount of energy hitting any given spot. Also, the long daylight hours allow the Earth plenty of time to reach warm temperatures. During the winter, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a shallow angle. These rays are more spread out, which minimizes the amount of energy that hits any given spot. Also, the long nights and short days prevent the Earth from warming up. Thus, we have winter!




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

No they haven't. El Nino's aren't forcing, they're internal oceanic waves & associated climate patterns.

"Forcings" was a poor choice of words on my part.


People have been aware of Svensmarks' hypotheses for numerous years now and have investigated them theoretically and experimentally. They do not explain the observations.

How so?


Likewise with solar forcing. There probably was some in the early 20th century, but more recently little.

And temperatures have been declining over the past 7-10 years even though CO2 continues to rise. Any explanation? www.greenworldtrust.org.uk...


The final problem with all these 'other' explanations is that they do NOTHING to challenge the actual observed physics of the greenhouse effect.

The physics of the greenhouse effect (ie that CO2 absorbs heat) is undisputed, the question is, will adding more carbon to the atmosphere catastrophically rise temperatures - and apart from GIGO computer models - I've seen no evidence that it will. I would be marginally more convinced that CO2 was a significant factor in driving temperatures if the hot spot was strongly signalled. The tropospheric hotspot is central to the AGW debate, because it's the fingerprint of positive feedback.


If you think of reason X it does nothing to turn off proven reason Y. You have to go much further and explain why this means the climate sensitivity is different

There have been many studies suggesting that climate sensitivity is more in the order of around 0.1C-0.5C, from Lindzen, Paltridge, Douglass and Spencer, inter alia, rather than the 3.5C proposed by the IPCC.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Athink
 


Game on! The news will be full of this. We get a little bit of a heat wave and they think the whole world will forget how cold its been and the revelation that the earths temperature has been dropping for over a decade. Remember those emails anyone?

Obama started back on Cap and Trade this morning. He even is trying to throw the Republicans some bones to get them to go along. Offered to end Capital Gains taxes and give small businesses tax relief, as if he would ever do that. Used the Gulf as an excuse again which is such a transparent lie I can't fathom anyone who would fall for it being able to tie their shoes. He even had the nerve to say that we were in danger of China cornering the Green Energy market!!!!!!!!!!!

Everybody has forgotten the email and even NASA finally telling the truth so now they are back at it. Billions at stake for Gore and Goldman Sachs who Obama answers too. No way did Obama get into the White House on his own merits. He is on somebodies payroll.

No doubt he will get loads of money after he leaves the White House if he passes that Cap and Trade monstrosity and destroys our economy for a decade in one vote. Say seats on ten Boards at 5 million a year per seat just to attend a meeting once a year. Lets not forget the huge speaker fees. You don't think the Universities actually pay those? Those are kickbacks laundered through Universities.

Follow the money and you will see why all of the sudden this is coming up again. Its not a coincidence this article appears the same day he goes after C and T again.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join