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 Hoax - Case Closed

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
After having done some sparse reading. I have come to the conclusion that global warming is a natural phenomenon and that man-made global warming is minuscule in comparison. I will present evidence and scientific reports to you that demonstrate a few things:

1) The major greenhouse Gases

2) CO2 levels rise in response to a rise in temperature, not vice versa

3) Manmade CO2 is small in comparison to natural CO2

4) The Solar sunspot cycle drives vast majority of earth weather, namely the warming cycles

1.The Greenhouse gases

From wikipedia:



Note that clouds/water vapor make the majority of Greenhouse gas, not CO2. But Co2 is a far more imporant greenhouse gas because unlike water it cannot condense


2. CO2 rises in response to rise in Temperature, not vice versa

Using the same report that Al Glore shows in his video "An Inconveneint Truth" He falsely misleads the people who did not take the time to see his sources. Presented are data from 390,000 to 650,000 years ago.

This report looks at 650,000 years of CO2 data from antarctic ice cores and a basic synopsis:

a) from 390-650K years, CO2 varied from 180 ppmv to 300 ppmv
b)

"The strong coupling of CO2 to antarctic temperature confirms earlier observations for the last glacial termination and the past four cycles and supports the hypothesis that the southern ocean played an important role in causing CO2 variations"

c)

"This value is consistent with estimates based on data from the past four glacial cycles. Fischer et al. concluded that CO2 concentrations lagged Antarctic warmings by 600 +/- 400 years during the past three transitions."

d) there is one case where the CO2 rises first, and quote :

"An apparent exception of the lag of CO2 to deuterium observed over most of the record occurs around 534 to 548 kyr B.P., where CO2 seems to lead dD by about 2000 +/- 500 year. We cannot conclude with certainty whether the observed lead of CO2 at this time is real or an artifact in the EDC2 time scale."


The scientists say they are uncertain if this is an artifact






I have uploaded this report for you:
www.scribd.com...


3. Atmospheric CO2

The majority of CO2 on earth is generated by decaying plant matter and the oceans, and some volcanic activity:

1) Organic Processes (natural decay of living matter), oceans: 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year
Src: en.wikipedia.org...'s_atmosphere
2) Humans: In 2008, 8.67 gigatonnes of carbon (31.8 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels worldwide, compared to 6.14 gigatonnes in 1990
- The oceans remove the majority of this (~57%)
Src: www.pnas.org...
3) Volcanoes, smaller contribution than humans

As you can see natural Co2 is much greater, and human contribution is approximately 4% of which half gets absorbed back into the oceans.

4. Sunspot Weather relation

They would only let you read the first page..you have to pay for the rest of the article, but from what we can read:
quoted:


www.sciencemag.org...

Another one:


www.sciencemag.org...

Another one:

www.sciencemag.org...


High-resolution analyses of lake sediment from southwestern Alaska reveal cyclic variations in climate and ecosystems during the Holocene. These variations occurred with periodicities similar to those of solar activity and appear to be coherent with time series of the cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be as well as North Atlantic drift ice. Our results imply that small variations in solar irradiance induced pronounced cyclic changes in northern high-latitude environments. They also provide evidence that centennial-scale shifts in the Holocene climate were similar between the subpolar regions of the North Atlantic and North Pacific, possibly because of Sun-ocean-climate linkages.


Recorded weather in history relating to the sun:

Maunder Minimum:




We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.

www.sciencemag.org...

Medival Maximum:


edit on 17-1-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Obviously a well thought out thread, with some effort put in..

But to be honest it means absolutely nothing to me, just seems to be facts and figures, that, because I'm not a scientist, I don't understand..



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Excellent thread well presented. i have shared the same belief for some time.. nice to see it layed out. S&F for you !



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Well which part dont you understand, I or someone on the board could help you with understanding it. Basically I am showing that ice core records show that CO2 rises after the temperature goes up (implies that the oceans release CO2 when they warm up) and that the sunspot intensity determines earth temperature. Oh and that humans generate very little C02 which has little influence on the weather in the first place.


Oh and thanks Lansky
I used to think all green and stuff now I think its just a media hype
edit on 17-1-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Yep, the Earth is getting warmer and things are going bad because of it...

Man made or not, nobody's gonna do about it?? We have the technology to reverse, tailor the world climate to our needs, not through HAARP...

We can disperse bouyant, mini/micro radiation reflectors on our atmosphere, it's only a question of money, not exactly raw materials.
edit on 17-1-2011 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2011 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
The sad thing is how global warming has politicized science.

Money will always dictate the results desired.

Then use those results to scare the populace into accepting new taxes and banning certain behaviors.

MMGW in a nutshell.

Thanks Club of Rome!


Just wanted to add that I've been an environmentalist for many years and never bought into the IPCC campaign.
edit on 17-1-2011 by Asktheanimals because: added comments



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Money will always dictate the results.


The exact answer is right here.
People with money find new ways to make more.
At the expense of the easily-persuaded public.

I hate what 'global warming' has become. 'Climate Change'...
Change this!

When they force Americans to pay UN taxes for climate change, something has to happen.
There's way too many members of congress that are proponents of the CC, too.
This has to be a plan.
It's all to clear now!!!

We need to elect an entire new group of people.
People who don't run their campaign with only money.
Americans.
Not politicians.

Awesome thread.





posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Nicely put together and I don't disagree, but case? What case? Hoax? What in particular and who cares in the end that one person or group of people were right about something happening but wrong about what.

Overall, I'll second (or third) the thought that man-made or not, our climate is changing, with maybe worse things to come, and that we need to acknowledge this, start being honest abut the implications to wildlife, plant life, and human life and our ecosystems and planet in general, and identify and start taking the steps we need to prepare, protect, and survive...and yes, in some cases not to add to the burden.

We've wasted years if not decades on a pissing contest about this, turning it into a political tool and debate point and made no progress because of this.

Really brilliant, humans.
edit on 1/17/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I must say that you post info rather well. People will see what they want to see, and the people do not see all of the facts at once. I agree with you on this subject and believe that some substantial evidence and information has been left out of the whole climate change(former global warming) front in the mainstream media. This is where the majority of the people get their news. Therefore the majority of the peolpe are being persuaded by these reports. Example: My internet homepage site.

"2010 ties for warmest year, emissions to blame"


"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Last year tied for the warmest since data started in 1880, capping a decade of record high temperatures that shows mankind's greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet, two U.S. agencies said.

Global surface temperatures in 2010 were 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit (0.62 Celsius) above the 20th century average, tying the record set in 2005, the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said on Wednesday.

"These results show that the climate is continuing to show the influence of greenhouse gases. It's showing evidence of warming," David Easterling, the chief of the scientific services division at the NCDC, told reporters in a teleconference."

news.yahoo.com...

While the news reports that greenhouse gas is to blame, the article says nothing about how much gases were released, there is nothing to mention of the greenhouse gases to blame at all. The whole focus of the article, after it led with the grennhouse gas blame, was to show the destructive potential of natural disasters and tie in the natural disasters with greenhouse gases without any information to back it up. This is one major biased flaw in the reporting of "climate change", one side gets all of the airtime and it is the doom and gloom to sell the people on the idea. This is the fundamental flaw that I have with the whole global warming=climate change agenda.



edit on 17-1-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling again



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Even if the reason the for climate change action is based on making some dollars,if the outcome is using our resources more efficiently ,is that a bad thing?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12voltz
Even if the reason the for climate change action is based on making some dollars,if the outcome is using our resources more efficiently ,is that a bad thing?


It is not just some dollars, it is billions, possibly trillions of dollars. This is money that could be invested in other areas, such as the social decay of poor neighborhoods, education for the youngsters, infrastructure, and so on.
While I agree we need to change our wasteful habits, climate change will ultimately lead to more hurtful regulation that will drive businesses to raise the rates for the business services that they provide. This leads to less jobs and a further downward spiral of the economy.
I agree with you that we need to change, but if people do not work, people cannot pay the bills and feed their family's. Eventually the environment will be the last thing on peoples minds when they are hungry and have no home due to loss of jobs from intense industrial regulation. There are over 300,000,000 americans. This takes a massive workforce to properly support a functional society in todays standards.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Good threa, I'd also like to add a bit...
the dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.

Thanks for a good thread, I can totally understand why people are confused about this subject, not everyone are scientists...


You might also like to read this website where it proves that about 85% of weather stations in the US are totally unreliable (IE.. next to heat sources)
www.surfacestations.org...

its also good to know that the animals on our planet produce around 150 gigatonnes of Co2 per year compared to 6 gigatonnes created by humans...
and even a larger contributor to co2 is dying vegitation and the biggest contributor again is the oceans! we are just a mere spec in the great grand scheme of things.


Cheers

edit on 17-1-2011 by Itop1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2011 by Itop1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2011 by Itop1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
After having done some sparse reading. I have come to the conclusion that global warming is a natural phenomenon and that man-made global warming is minuscule in comparison. I will present evidence and scientific reports to you that demonstrate a few things:


Kool! Sounds like this will be a coherent logical argument showing that the current period of Global warming is natural...



Note that clouds/water vapor make the majority of Greenhouse gas, not CO2. But Co2 is a far more imporant greenhouse gas because unlike water it cannot condense


2. CO2 rises in response to rise in Temperature, not vice versa


Oh, in the space of two sentences, you contradicted yourself.

Pity. Perhaps the 'sparse' reading was to blame.

Ciao.
edit on 17-1-2011 by melatonin because: ...the demoiselles’ll all swoon. Dress in huge, baggy pants. And you’ll ride the road to romance.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I did not contradict myself, instead of picking on grammar mistakes can you provide counter evidence to back up your statements. Evidence from good sources, not the news.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Nothing to do with 'grammar' mistakes. Purely contradictory statements.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It causes warming - it's an inherent property of GHGs. Simples.

Therefore, your next statement is incorrect ('...not vice versa'). The fact you don't understand the implications of your own statements shows you need to go do a bit more reading.

Cheers.




edit on 17-1-2011 by melatonin because: Don't you love farce? My fault, I fear. I thought that you'd want what I want - Sorry, my dear.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Yes, that natural phenomenon is driven by....what?


Funny how deniars are still trying to say natural phenom. But yet, no one, can say exactly what that is.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


it goes both ways. There are a lot of corporations who could stand to lose a lot of money.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
So in an effort to throw out as many theories as possible, you are claiming it is both natural, and sun spot activity? I think you need to pick one, or two..



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


It is a greenhouse gas but it does not cause the extent of warming being portrayed by the media. It has not done in the past as I clearly demonstrate.

A better way to say it is earth temperatures are more dependent on solar activity than they are on CO2 and an even lesser extent on anthropogenic CO2.

I also go on to say that water is a bigger GHG than CO2:




Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[10]

From wikipedia

So what are you doing to stop water vapor concentration in the air? Decreasing solar activity? Have you done that lately?

You need to read the scientific reports after you get your head out of your anus. Did you read the report I posted?

I am showing evidence that CO2 in the past did not cause global warming even though it is a greenhouse gas. Maybe you need to take reading comprehension classes.
edit on 17-1-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So in an effort to throw out as many theories as possible, you are claiming it is both natural, and sun spot activity? I think you need to pick one, or two..


Sunspot activity is natural duh, anything that is in nature is natural,the sun is in nature, hence it is natural.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join