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? Think Again.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


You gotta stop reading Jo Nova OP.
You'll just end up like Mez. Doing chores for his missus, it is not a real job.

No one is stating that CO2 is the only driver of climate.
Different periods can have high CO2 ppm and still have glaciation rather then run away temps. depending on other drives like solar output, so your mathematics is out somewhat in that you are not accounting for the equivalent forcings per period or era.
droyer.web.wesleyan.edu...

But anyway, even Mez agrees that we are increasing CO2 independant of temperature and that this will effect temperature.
Mez has also proven Anthropogenic Global Warming by showing that CO2 is rising ahead of temperatures, is emiited by humans and that this will effect tempreature.
Given that we are also monitoring solar irradience and this has not increased, as well as other drives, one must consider the evidence Mez has provided ATS.
That evidence is that CO2 is rising, this is driven by humans. This rise in CO2 is ahead of temperature rises and will effect temperature.
Currently there are observations that support the above.

Once again I'd like to offer my thanks to Mez for providing ATS with more evidence supporting AGW.

OP. If you want to go to the history books, simply show us where in the past 6.5 billion humans occur who are emitting CO2 independantly and ahead of temperature rises whilst considering Solar irradience in relation to PPM in terms of forcing and then we can discuss dismissing contemporary Anthropogenic global warming as historically insignificant in relation to historicial climate trends that have passed.

Please don't U2U me Mez, the last few reeked of desperation. Seriously dude, get a life.




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mez353
 


Well you are correct about the magnetic field. However if you think of the earth more as an electromagnet you it is easier to understand how the breakdown of the mechanism stops the field. Yes there are natural cycles. But if you really think about the whole of the system you will have a better understanding. The creation of static electricity, convection, molecular dishcharge, etc it is easy to see we can effect climate. If you study the magnetosphere you will quickly see it's somewhat of a mystery even today. Modern systems theory creates the framework for the research.

Don't study just the tree but the whole forest habitat. (a rough metaphor)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


It's fine to put a question mark on it. Glad to have you think for yourself. However I would seriously doubt you have the understanding to properly analyze the results you post. Otherwise the results of your findings would be different. You can't just post random facts that half support an opinion unless you arethrowing them out as a big question mark. First of the magnetosphere is not fully understood. Secondly you are in denial of how much we have changed the earth in the last 800 years. Partly from farming yes. But also from mining, drilling, and trashing up ecosystems. The rainforests are huge disasters. We have deforested so much of the earth that the fact alone has created weather changes. You also need an understanding of physics to realize how the machine of this planet could be working.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 





Well the Vostok ice cores showed us that co2 rise lagged behind temperature rise by approx 800 years !

And what was the temperature 800 years ago............Oh is that the Medieval Warming Period.....You know the one they tried to hide



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Don’t believe Atlasastro I said nor proved no such thing, it’s just his little wind up game.

Didn’t think we’d hear from you Atlas as I hear it’s a little damp over in Oz and that’s ruined your summer.
Oh I forgot, you’re not in Queensland you’re in Sydney where all the gays are.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 


Do you mean the Electric Universe theory? I started to look into that a while back and it seemed to make alot of sense to me, I mean, lots of things are electric or hold a charge, including us.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


There are a number of things wrong with your last reply - not the least of which is the fact that you just completely contradicted yourself:

In the first paragraph you wrote that CO2 can't possibly create a positive feedback because this would have a runaway effect and therefore be infinite. Then in the second paragraph you added that the effect of adding CO2 is ever-diminishing because it is logarithmic.

So which one is it lol?

Yes, CO2's effect is logarithmic. But this idea that it has no effect after 20 ppm is completely made up nonsense. It hasn't been "estimated by experts" - it's just pure disinfo that's been spawned and regurgitated around the blogosphere by a bunch of denier stooges who have no expertise in anything other than bullsh**. This meme seems to have been started by a guy named Willis Eschenbach, who is a "construction manager/blogger". He has absolutely ZERO background in science, let alone climate science, and he's been repeatedly caught lying and misrepresenting data about it in the past.

The logarithmic relationship of CO2 forcing is an element of climatology that is considered very well understood at this point. 3.7 W/m^2 is the change in forcing we can expect from a CO2 doubling. This part is not under any debate. What's under debate is the climate sensitivity which gets multiplied by this number.

So the fact that you are focusing on this really says a lot about the type of homework you've been doing, Studenofhistory. Because considering you've already brought up the "carbon lags temp" and "all the planets are heating up" memes this is strike 3, and it speaks volumes about where you're getting your (dis)information from.


...
So let me break it down for you, since you claim to be open-minded and since we're on a conspiracy site:

All this "homework" you've been doing is coming from sources that aren't just wrong - they are deliberately lying to you. They are trying to spoon-feed you myths and lies that are easier to swallow than the truth.

Why are they doing this?

Just throw away your bias for a minute and consider what it means if manmade global warming is real:

It means we have to get off carbon, period. That means we have to get off coal and oil. It also means we have to significantly cut down our wasteful consumption habits that are horrible for the environment in a whole myriad of ways that go well beyond CO2. But these habits are precisely what the rich rely on to get richer, understand?

They don't care about goddam carbon taxes - they care much MUCH more that you and I continue using and consuming as much as possible as un-resourcefully as possible - energy, food, plastic, transportation - the whole enchilada. Because all of these things, all of these "economic activities", have a profit attached to them. So the more we indulge in them the more money people at the top of the economic food chain get to make.



So please go do some real homework on the people who are telling you that global warming is a hoax. Go see for yourself how many of them are fundamentalist "trickle down" republicans, how many of them are outright funded by fossil fuel companies, and most of all how many of them are just bumbling idiots who eat all their propaganda up, hook line and sinker - and then regurgitate it like it's fact so all the other sheep can mindlessly fall in line too.

The scientific debate is settled. The public debate meanwhile is completely skewed by all this corporate propaganda and all the weak-minded people who slurp it up because they are much more concerned with fulfilling narcissistic fantasies about how smart they think they are rather than accepting any shred of uncomfortable responsibility.

So you have a choice, you can either really do your homework - and look at the WHOLE conspiracy (like a true skeptic would). Here are some links to get you started...

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Statement of Dr. James McCarthy: Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight House Science Committee

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

The Climate Killers

32000 Scientists

Climate Change - Meet the Scientists

Understanding Climate-Change Skepticism: Its Sources and Strategies (Note - this was a symposium composed by real scientists who got together to discuss why contrarians are getting so much attention in the public debate when there is so much consensus on AGW in the scientific one).

THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial

The Denial Machine (Absolute MUST SEE CBC Documentary)

Big Oil creates phony climate denial site, lies about it

Conspiracy theory? That'll be the deniers

Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says


...or you can just ignore ALL OF THAT like the rest of these hypocrite ideologue trolls do.

In that case go right ahead and join them over in the pasture reserved for their special brand of sheep. I.e the ones who falsely think they're sooooo "awake" when they're actually even bigger sheep than the regular sheep. I see in this thread they are desperately tryng to woo you into their pen. So go right ahead - you can spend your days and nights making fun of all the other supposedly brainwashed sheep while you feast away on all the delicious astroturf you can eat.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maximus_Prime
wow. how dumb can you be. If you think the effects of man have nothing to do with it your an idiot; If you think they have something to do with it your pretty smart; If you think they have everything to do with it well your just as dumb.

Perhaps you meant to use "you're" in place of "your" in each of three instances above while proclaiming what makes a person smart rather than an idiot?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
For the first time in history, 49 US States had snow on the ground at the same time. Every state except Florida had snow on January 11/12th, 2011. This was reported on CNBC on the morning of January 12th.


You do realize that what matters is the average temperature worldwide, not individual temperatures, right? There's a a HUGE world outside the US, you just have to open your eyes



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I'm an idiot






edit on 13-1-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Here, I want to show you something.


Originally posted by Studenofhistory
For the first time in history, 49 US States had snow on the ground at the same time. Every state except Florida had snow on January 11/12th, 2011. This was reported on CNBC on the morning of January 12th.


See what I did there? That "first time in history" thing is important. That said, I kind of wonder about the veracity of the statement - It snowed in Hawai'i? Well, I guess there's mauna kea, but that doesn't really "count"

"global warming" is a shorthand phrase. And just because it's cold today somewhere does not mean that it's not a fact. By that logic, every day where it's warmer than the day before "proves" global warming, see?

It's a global measurement of climate change. Thus the "global" part of the term.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


There are a number of things wrong with your last reply - not the least of which is the fact that you just completely contradicted yourself:

In the first paragraph you wrote that CO2 can't possibly create a positive feedback because this would have a runaway effect and therefore be infinite. Then in the second paragraph you added that the effect of adding CO2 is ever-diminishing because it is logarithmic.

So which one is it lol?

Yes, CO2's effect is logarithmic. But this idea that it has no effect after 20 ppm is completely made up nonsense. It hasn't been "estimated by experts" - it's just pure disinfo that's been spawned and regurgitated around the blogosphere by a bunch of denier stooges who have no expertise in anything other than bullsh**. This meme seems to have been started by a guy named Willis Eschenbach, who is a "construction manager/blogger". He has absolutely ZERO background in science, let alone climate science, and he's been repeatedly caught lying and misrepresenting data about it in the past.

The logarithmic relationship of CO2 forcing is an element of climatology that is considered very well understood at this point. 3.7 W/m^2 is the change in forcing we can expect from a CO2 doubling. This part is not under any debate. What's under debate is the climate sensitivity which gets multiplied by this number.

So the fact that you are focusing on this really says a lot about the type of homework you've been doing, Studenofhistory. Because considering you've already brought up the "carbon lags temp" and "all the planets are heating up" memes this is strike 3, and it speaks volumes about where you're getting your (dis)information from.


...
So let me break it down for you, since you claim to be open-minded and since we're on a conspiracy site:

All this "homework" you've been doing is coming from sources that aren't just wrong - they are deliberately lying to you. They are trying to spoon-feed you myths and lies that are easier to swallow than the truth.

Why are they doing this?

Just throw away your bias for a minute and consider what it means if manmade global warming is real:

It means we have to get off carbon, period. That means we have to get off coal and oil. It also means we have to significantly cut down our wasteful consumption habits that are horrible for the environment in a whole myriad of ways that go well beyond CO2. But these habits are precisely what the rich rely on to get richer, understand?

They don't care about goddam carbon taxes - they care much MUCH more that you and I continue using and consuming as much as possible as un-resourcefully as possible - energy, food, plastic, transportation - the whole enchilada. Because all of these things, all of these "economic activities", have a profit attached to them. So the more we indulge in them the more money people at the top of the economic food chain get to make.



So please go do some real homework on the people who are telling you that global warming is a hoax. Go see for yourself how many of them are fundamentalist "trickle down" republicans, how many of them are outright funded by fossil fuel companies, and most of all how many of them are just bumbling idiots who eat all their propaganda up, hook line and sinker - and then regurgitate it like it's fact so all the other sheep can mindlessly fall in line too.

The scientific debate is settled. The public debate meanwhile is completely skewed by all this corporate propaganda and all the weak-minded people who slurp it up because they are much more concerned with fulfilling narcissistic fantasies about how smart they think they are rather than accepting any shred of uncomfortable responsibility.

So you have a choice, you can either really do your homework - and look at the WHOLE conspiracy (like a true skeptic would). Here are some links to get you started...

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Statement of Dr. James McCarthy: Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight House Science Committee

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

The Climate Killers

32000 Scientists

Climate Change - Meet the Scientists

Understanding Climate-Change Skepticism: Its Sources and Strategies (Note - this was a symposium composed by real scientists who got together to discuss why contrarians are getting so much attention in the public debate when there is so much consensus on AGW in the scientific one).

THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial

The Denial Machine (Absolute MUST SEE CBC Documentary)

Big Oil creates phony climate denial site, lies about it

Conspiracy theory? That'll be the deniers

Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says


...or you can just ignore ALL OF THAT like the rest of these hypocrite ideologue trolls do.

In that case go right ahead and join them over in the pasture reserved for their special brand of sheep. I.e the ones who falsely think they're sooooo "awake" when they're actually even bigger sheep than the regular sheep. I see in this thread they are desperately tryng to woo you into their pen. So go right ahead - you can spend your days and nights making fun of all the other supposedly brainwashed sheep while you feast away on all the delicious astroturf you can eat.


VERY nice post mate!! One of the best posts highlighting why the denial movement is nothing but a bunch of corporate funded/directed puppets...

Just to highlight the 10 hottest years since we started recording global average temperatures:


2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2009
2006
2007
2004
2001

Guess which one was the hottest!! 2010!! Also, notice how 9 out of 10 of the hottest years were in the first few years of this century...but yeah, global warming isn't happening, right?

edit on 13-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
No it's not just so untrue. When adjusted upwards the temperatures for 2010 are relatively warm, but left alone thay are the same as 2003 and cooler than 2005 and 1998. Just another example of how the science can be altered to fit the policy.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

'When the two men examined the original data from which this claim was derived – compiled by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre – it clearly showed 2010 as having been cooler than 2005 (and 1998) and equal to 2003. It emerged that, for the purposes of the press release, the data had been significantly adjusted.

Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade.

I asked the Met Office to comment on what seems like yet another embarrassing example of juggling with the figures. It denied the charge and I shall report on its lengthily evasive reply, once the GWPF has had a more considered response from Mr Hirst. '

Just for once, admit that there is nothing in this and that your post was an utter waste of time.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
First of all, there is nothing contradictory about recognizing that rising CO2 levels do not apparently cause runaway warming based on ice core samples AND the fact that CO2 is logarithmic. Here is a link to a site that explains how CO2's logarithmic properties actually create a negative feedback effect.

knowledgedrift.wordpress.com...

As for your links about who is funding climate denier claims, I couldn't care less. It doesn't matter who is funding what, the science is all that matters. The FACTS are; CO2 levels lag temperature. CO2's impact on temperature is logarithmic and therefore each additional ppm of CO2 has less and less impact on temperature. Other planets are getting warmer as well (as reported by NASA!!!!!!) therefore there is clearly....CLEARLY!!! other factors involved beside man-made CO2.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
It's kind of ironic that AGW latched onto CO2 the way they did.

Set the environmental movement back decades...

Why couldn't they have latched on to the serious problems that can actually be tracked back to our current issues:

Deforestation.
Direct Chemical Pollution



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Your "top ten years" was based of fasified data which has been admitted by CRU who says the had the origional data but it was mysteriously deleted. Crap in crap out on these puter models they rely on. NASA has also been caught falsifying data. Of course they both say it was just errors. Yeah ok.

What is the optimum temperature for the earth that warming and cooling should be based on? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. Fact is the atmosphere is not a static entity and is changing by the second. Many factors are not even taken into consideration with these computer modeling predictions. At least ones that seem to disagree with the results they want to achieve. Once all the money from carbon trading schemes and politics get involved it's not about saving the planet or anything else anymore.

I urge you to watch this documentary from the seventies when the same scientists were howling about an ice age coming. They actually used the same ice cores and sediment samples from the ocean to declare an ice age was coming. Oops.

Link



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
It's kind of ironic that AGW latched onto CO2 the way they did.

Set the environmental movement back decades...

Why couldn't they have latched on to the serious problems that can actually be tracked back to our current issues:

Deforestation.
Direct Chemical Pollution



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


This is why I brought it up.

I try very hard to minimize my ecological impact.
I use brown water for outdoor and material washing.
I generate some of my own electricity.
I generate some of my own hot water



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


This is why I brought it up.

I try very hard to minimize my ecological impact.
I use brown water for outdoor and material washing.
I generate some of my own electricity.
I generate some of my own hot water



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Anyone interested in this post and others like it are all in agreement about reducing waste, pollution and cutting down on energy usage because we're all essentially trying to be considerate responsible people. It's a shame that the argument concerning AGW causes so much rage as it's a small part (or not) of what we face in the years ahead.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join