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.

 

New climate data shows warming world: WMO

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Reuters




Last year tied for the hottest year on record, confirming a long-term warming trend which will continue unless greenhouse gas emissions are cut, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Thursday.

The first 10 years of the millennium proved to be the hottest decade since records began in the 19th century, it said.

"The main signal is that the warming trend continues and is being strengthened year after year," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud told a news conference.

"The trend, unfortunately, will continue for a number of years but the amplitude will depend on the amount of greenhouse gases released," the Frenchman added. "It will depend on action taken to minimize the release of greenhouse gases."

Jarraud said the latest data should convince doubters about the growing evidence for man-made climate change. "If they look at it in an unbiased way, it should convince them, or hopefully a few of them, that the skeptical position is untenable."


Very interesting article. Newest data confirms that greenhouse gases are indeed causing the global warming.

Now I do not like the idea of yet another tax being implemented, such as the carbon tax, but I do like the idea of corporations paying for the damages they cause in order to make a profit. You spend money to make money, right?


Anyways, thought I'd share this and I haven't find anything recent in the search.

Cheers!

Khar




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
so i dont see how we have global warming and an ice age at the same time, i say its all bs. the earth is following the trends it has for millions of years



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
and now que the anti-science politihacks on ATS collectively ducking their head in the sand and demanding everyone else do the same

Expect the argument "winter is cold, therefore global warming is false" to pop up

Expect discussions on how medieval times experienced a warming period (and a mini ice age).

Expect pictures of temperature boxes near parking lots

Expect strawman argument after strawman argument based on nothing, or just a full derailing of the thread.

meh.

S&F for you for having the courage to expose a anti-corporate subject...aka, science.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I certainly hope the earth keeps warming. I hate winter.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I find it interesting that in December we had a whole load of articles here in the UK with the specialists hailing the return of traditional British weather following the warming of the last decade.

So I am guessing these guys are getting their data out there into the mainstream before lasts years data disproves the warming they are theorising will happen.

I say the article is a mad dash to retain funding



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You forgot to mention those who have already come out in December saying how we are returning to traditional seasons..

Traditional seasons help UK's flora and fauna to thrive

From Linky

“For the first time in a generation we have experienced a traditional year of weather and our wildlife has mostly responded favourably,” said Matthew Oates, the National Trust’s nature conservation advisor.

A cold winter enabled wildlife to hibernate properly while a warm spring and early summer created ideal conditions for insects and led to bumper autumn berry crops in our orchards, woods and hedgerows,” Mr Oates said.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 


Reuters is owed by the rothschilds, and rothchilds where pushing bogus agw(Man made global warming), What a joke this rubbish is still going on.

But after a few weeks, the ignorant masses will be lapping it up again from the media.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kombat13
 


Well I was wondering about that as well but after looking it up, the explanation that the scientists are saying is that the melting of the polar caps due to global warming is releasing extraordinary amounts of freezing water into the the ocean currents.

It is widely accepted that global ocean currents are responsible for regulating the climate around the world. When you bring in those vast amounts of cold water into warmer currents you change the climate of the region. Now, since the Arctic cap is releasing all that water into the warm Atlantic current, for example, the colder water now cools the air that brings in the warm westerly wind into Europe. Since the winds are cooled because of the water currents, the overall climate of Northern Europe is directly impacted.

This will happen differently across the globe and different regions may get different changes. While the overall temperature of the globe is increasing, some may notice a temperature drop since the global climate is changing differently in places.

Hope that helps,

Khar

edit on 20-1-2011 by Kharron because: typo



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Kharron
 


Reuters is owed by the rothschilds, and rothchilds where pushing bogus agw(Man made global warming), What a joke this rubbish is still going on.


Hey, I despise TPTB as much as you do but I was always under the impression that fact supersedes opinion. When facts are presented to me after much research was done, I'll put my distaste for the elites aside and listen for a moment.

Not everything goes according to the elites' plan. Not every scientist is on some NWO payroll, there are many intelligent people out there who think like us and are doing the hard work trying to preserve this planet.

Did you read this article at all?

Khar



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Expect that they say "hottest year EVER" then go on to say since records began in the mid 19th century..

Hardly MY idea of EVER..


edit: Seem to me that they want to get out of explaing the earlier WARM periods that we now know are FACT by suddenly moving the goal posts to ONLY include data taken since the mid 1800's....

That's a sham as we have clear evidence of warmer times prior to this...
Which obviously doesn't suit their theory or agenda....
edit on 20-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Nice to know that I'm not the only person on ATS who thinks that humans are contributing to climate change...

Even if we weren't definitely contributing to climate change, oh ye doubters, wouldn't it be better to act IN CASE we were, and then if it turns out we were contributing, we've fixed it, and if it spirals out of control, well at least we won't have it on our consciences?


(says he looking longingly at the space heater about two feet away...)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 



Even if we weren't definitely contributing to climate change, oh ye doubters, wouldn't it be better to act IN CASE we were, and then if it turns out we were contributing, we've fixed it, and if it spirals out of control, well at least we won't have it on our consciences?


Does it really matter?

Stop and think about it a minute. This earth and climate have changed dozens, if not hundreds of times since it has been around. Life has survived each and every one of these changes in some capacity since it has been around.

Are you really so arrogant to believe that we, who have only a hundred or so years of accurate climate data, can mandate an ideal climate and either A) maintain that ideal climate or B) significantly alter the climate?

The friggin' Death Star can show up and insta-melt our polar ice caps and we would be more than capable of living through the resulting ordeal. That's impractical - and the amount of energy required to turn our climate into a state of emergency is so astronomical that there's no need to panic and "save the planet."

I was a Boy Scout - I like being efficient and avoiding unnecessary waste and destruction.

That said - we don't need to start throwing babies out with the bath water. You're not going to mandate that I buy a hybrid car or some other fifty-thousand dollar nonsense because you're afraid of your G5 Grandchildren owning some ocean-front property in Tennessee. I like clean dishes and will use the most intense wash cycle on the dishwasher and the kill-everything detergent if it's necessary to clean the things. If you've got some tree-hugger paraphernalia that can do the same job and isn't grossly overpriced because it comes with the "green" coin-phrase, then I'm game.

The climate is -always- going to be changing. It's either going to be colder than last year, or it's going to be hotter. It's going to be dryer, or wetter - windier, or calmer. Someone is always going to be displeased with the way the wind is blowing.

The fact of the matter is that our whole world is constantly changing and that is beyond our control. Our solar system was once part of a dwarf galaxy that is being consumed by the larger Milky Way galaxy. The continents are slowly jostling around as winds and currents shift - ice sheets melting in one area and expanding in another....

We need to get something straight in our collective, ego-centric mind: If the world is going to change, the world is going to change and there's not a damned thing we can do about it but do our best to survive. Whether we see a massive flood or turn into an ice-ball - there's not a whole heck of a lot we are going to be able to do to change or stop it.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
And yep, seems I was right at my initial point.

Its like smoking. They smoke a cigarette, they note they haven't died, therefore, smoking claims being dangerous are all bunk, and they light up again.

It is a disconnect of consequences to actions

I wonder if the people whom breathlessly dismiss this are smokers...would be a interesting study...perhaps we are dealing with some sort of widespread neural disorder



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
And yep, seems I was right at my initial point.

Its like smoking. They smoke a cigarette, they note they haven't died, therefore, smoking claims being dangerous are all bunk, and they light up again.

It is a disconnect of consequences to actions

I wonder if the people whom breathlessly dismiss this are smokers...would be a interesting study...perhaps we are dealing with some sort of widespread neural disorder


Or perhaps you are dealing with people that see through the manipulation of data to suit a preset agenda..



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
My post in another thread:


Originally posted by monkey_descendant
The oil companies are like the tobacco companies used to be. Most likely these sorts of posts and comments (like the OP) started off by people working for or funded by the oil companies to "advertise" their ideas on forums and on newspaper comments. Seems the idea has gone VIRAL.

The less said by me the better, because I know I'm going to get lampooned by the great brainwashed.

www.guardian.co.uk...


President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.


www.guardian.co.uk...


The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy............ Greenpeace says ExxonMobil continues to fund over "two dozen other
organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."


www.independent.co.uk...

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Sir Richard Branson and fellow leading businessmen will warn ministers this week that the world is running out of oil and faces an oil crunch within five years.....Ministers have until now refused to take predictions of oil droughts seriously, preferring to side with oil companies such as BP and ExxonMobil and crude producers such as the Saudis, who insist there is nothing to worry about.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Emission limits such as those in the Kyoto protocol would hit oil firms because the bulk of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuel products.

Prof May writes that during the 1990s, parts of the US oil industry funded sceptics who opposed action to tackle climate change. A Scientific Alliance spokesman said today's meeting was sponsored but funders did not influence policies. ExxonMobil said it was not involved.

One adviser is Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre, who is linked to the Marshall Institute. In 1998 Dr Baliunas co-wrote an article that argued for the release of more carbon dioxide. It was mass-mailed to US scientists with a petition asking them to reject Kyoto.


www.guardian.co.uk...

BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.

An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.


www.telegraph.co.uk...

A Greenpeace investigation also claimed that between 2006 and 2009, the company and its owners - Charles and David Koch - spent £25.3 million ($37.9 million) on direct lobbying on oil and energy issues.
.............Koch defended its track record on environmental issues, saying in a statement that its companies had "consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products".
Then why fund deniers? I suppose the latter was to make themselves look good and mask their true intentions.

www.independent.co.uk...

In Britain it ended in freezing temperatures and weeks of snow and ice. Globally, though, 2010 was still the second warmest year on record, according to Met Office scientists who yesterday reaffirmed that the world is continuing to get warmer.

Preliminary data gathered from thousands of weather stations, ships and buoys stationed across the world show that 2010 was second only to 1998 in terms of global average temperatures and that nine out of the 10 hottest years on record have now occurred between 2001 and 2010.


And that will be it for examples, because otherwise it will be TL;DR.

We've had three under-cover police officers come out in the open in the UK admitting to pretending to be enviromental activists and at least one of them instigated violence and law breaking.


Obviously carbon taxes are a load of bollocks we all know that, that's not going to fix the situation it's just political spin so that politicians try to make it look like they're "doing" something.

Think about this: Who ultimately gains from climate change denial?

1. We create alternative energies (and no, not that biofuel crap!), end up with a cleaner world, oil will run out at some point anyway so we will need these and should invest in them while we still can. We invested in alternative energy, we have a future energy source, we continue to eat, produce medicine and technology. We have a cleaner world, WOHOO!

2. We don't create enough alternative energies, we continue to use polluting oil, we pollute some more, we run out of oil. We have no alternative energies. we most likely damage the climate to a point which will make it difficult for us to sustain ourselves. Oh #. End game.

3. As a famous youtube argument said: We do nothing and we were wrong we're in deep deep poop (End game). We do nothing and we aren't wrong (phew), but we still run out of oil, #. We do something and we were wrong, well at least now we have an alternative to the running out oil, and a cleaner world, yay! We do something and we were right, well thank god for that!

Once we run out of oil, what energy source do we use to create alternative energies? Once we have all the alternative energies set up and running we'd be ok, because we could use that energy to build other stuff.

edit on 21-1-2011 by monkey_descendant because: spelling, structure



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
My post in another thread:


Originally posted by monkey_descendant
The oil companies are like the tobacco companies used to be. Most likely these sorts of posts and comments (like the OP) started off by people working for or funded by the oil companies to "advertise" their ideas on forums and on newspaper comments. Seems the idea has gone VIRAL.

The less said by me the better, because I know I'm going to get lampooned by the great brainwashed.

www.guardian.co.uk...


President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.


www.guardian.co.uk...


The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy............ Greenpeace says ExxonMobil continues to fund over "two dozen other
organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."


www.independent.co.uk...

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Sir Richard Branson and fellow leading businessmen will warn ministers this week that the world is running out of oil and faces an oil crunch within five years.....Ministers have until now refused to take predictions of oil droughts seriously, preferring to side with oil companies such as BP and ExxonMobil and crude producers such as the Saudis, who insist there is nothing to worry about.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Emission limits such as those in the Kyoto protocol would hit oil firms because the bulk of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuel products.

Prof May writes that during the 1990s, parts of the US oil industry funded sceptics who opposed action to tackle climate change. A Scientific Alliance spokesman said today's meeting was sponsored but funders did not influence policies. ExxonMobil said it was not involved.

One adviser is Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre, who is linked to the Marshall Institute. In 1998 Dr Baliunas co-wrote an article that argued for the release of more carbon dioxide. It was mass-mailed to US scientists with a petition asking them to reject Kyoto.


www.guardian.co.uk...

BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.

An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.


www.telegraph.co.uk...

A Greenpeace investigation also claimed that between 2006 and 2009, the company and its owners - Charles and David Koch - spent £25.3 million ($37.9 million) on direct lobbying on oil and energy issues.
.............Koch defended its track record on environmental issues, saying in a statement that its companies had "consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products".
Then why fund deniers? I suppose the latter was to make themselves look good and mask their true intentions.

www.independent.co.uk...

In Britain it ended in freezing temperatures and weeks of snow and ice. Globally, though, 2010 was still the second warmest year on record, according to Met Office scientists who yesterday reaffirmed that the world is continuing to get warmer.

Preliminary data gathered from thousands of weather stations, ships and buoys stationed across the world show that 2010 was second only to 1998 in terms of global average temperatures and that nine out of the 10 hottest years on record have now occurred between 2001 and 2010.


And that will be it for examples, because otherwise it will be TL;DR.

We've had three under-cover police officers come out in the open in the UK admitting to pretending to be enviromental activists and at least one of them instigated violence and law breaking.


Obviously carbon taxes are a load of bollocks we all know that, that's not going to fix the situation it's just political spin so that politicians try to make it look like they're "doing" something.

Think about this: Who ultimately gains from climate change denial?

1. We create alternative energies (and no, not that biofuel crap!), end up with a cleaner world, oil will run out at some point anyway so we will need these and should invest in them while we still can. We invested in alternative energy, we have a future energy source, we continue to eat, produce medicine and technology. We have a cleaner world, WOHOO!

2. We don't create enough alternative energies, we continue to use polluting oil, we pollute some more, we run out of oil. We have no alternative energies. we most likely damage the climate to a point which will make it difficult for us to sustain ourselves. Oh #. End game.

3. As a famous youtube argument said: We do nothing and we were wrong we're in deep deep poop (End game). We do nothing and we aren't wrong (phew), but we still run out of oil, #. We do something and we were wrong, well at least now we have an alternative to the running out oil, and a cleaner world, yay! We do something and we were right, well thank god for that!

Once we run out of oil, what energy source do we use to create alternative energies? Once we have all the alternative energies set up and running we'd be ok, because we could use that energy to build other stuff.

edit on 21-1-2011 by monkey_descendant because: spelling, structure



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Thats a good list.
Yep, big oil agenda must be angellic and pro-humanity..meanwhile those darned scientists with their data and evidence is trying to topple the poor oil companys.

luckily we have some politicians to stand with big oil and free us from the evil scientists and their demonic facts. God loves big oil and hates facts...go with god.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Its like smoking. They smoke a cigarette, they note they haven't died, therefore, smoking claims being dangerous are all bunk, and they light up again.


We're going to die regardless of what we do. I can pump myself full of antioxidants and avoid anything industrially produced like the plague and die at an early age of 'natural causes.' Or they get eaten by a crocodile or something along those lines.

I know people who smoked until the day they died, and died at 90+ years old. To try and make the argument that not smoking would have extended their life any longer is simply not sound scientific reasoning.


It is a disconnect of consequences to actions


When you have a heart attack or stroke - there is generally not one single cause, but a multitude of factors -suspected- to contribute. Only a fool tries to compare medical diagnosis to science.


I wonder if the people whom breathlessly dismiss this are smokers...would be a interesting study...perhaps we are dealing with some sort of widespread neural disorder


I can tell you I don't smoke. And I don't buy anthropomorphic global warming - or the whole global warming craze. I do notice, however, that a general lack of intellectual competency exists within the demographic that accepts global warming.


Yep, big oil agenda must be angellic and pro-humanity..meanwhile those darned scientists with their data and evidence is trying to topple the poor oil companys.


How quaint.

Rather than looking at the world for what it is, you decide to marginalize everything into "good" and "bad" categories. Climate research isn't scientific. Go back to grade school and learn about the scientific method. Unless you can perform properly controlled experiments, no cause-effect can be determined from the tested variables. In a climate with -millions- of variables; you're not in science anymore, Toto.

I urge you to watch the Weather Channel. We've been at this for quite a while - the better part of a hundred years encompasses modern meteorology. Weather forecasts become shoddy after about 48 hours, and completely useless beyond 72.

There's a disconnect between the micro and macroscopic applications, here - but predicting the overall state of the climate (something we have only really been studying as a whole for about the past forty years) over the next hundred years is completely beyond the scope of our experience. We have to keep records for another hundred years just to -start- building models that can come close to predicting changes in the climate, let alone calibrate and troubleshoot discrepancies.

And why not take a look at what funds these research papers? Environmentalist groups, politicians looking to bring back some pork to start up new energy companies, etc. People are people - be they scientists or oil tycoons. If you believe a scientist is any more ethical in their behavior than a CEO or floor manager, you have another thing coming.

Contract research is a service, not to the advancement of human understanding, but to a paying customer. The scientists may submit the most accurate and unbiased set of data and analysis discussions they can to the editor, who will end up adding in key phrases and tag lines - supported by the data or not - into the published release as a form of customer courtesy.

When Green Peace pays for environmental research, they expect to be able to take that published paper and say: "see, here, the University of Cranial Eggs agrees that climate change is a threat to sustained living and that humans do contribute."

It is also worth noting that many universities and even the people working on these climate studies stand to benefit from a rush to hire and convert to 'green' technologies to comply with legislation or consumer demand. There are few instances where you can research yourself a high-demand job. This is certainly it.

Sure - oil companies are going to fight against legislation that attempts to penalize them. The fact is, however, that they aren't in any danger of "losing." They have enough capital to invest in entire new energy markets - and already are. They contract GE, LG, and other companies to develop new 'green' solutions. India and China are both going to overshadow U.S. oil consumption before much longer - so the American oil market is really rather inconsequential to the oil companies. They will sell and proprietor 'green' energy in the tree hugger countries, and sell oil to other developing industrial powers.

They aren't angelic - but nor are scientists.

And the sad thing is - at the end of the day - all of this agenda-based research has not contributed on bit to our understanding. That's the real crime, here. Every bit of data has been drawn into question due to issues like climate-gate. We don't know how much data has been skewed and altered - and really have to start over from day zero. It's pathetic, actually.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by kombat13
 


Completely agree with you. The proof that we dont really understand our weather history is evident in the North. Greenland Ice is melting, and scientists are finding ancient forests that once existed, which could suggest a different climate at some point.

The same thing occuring in Antartica is more proof. There are maps that were made of Antartica before it was covered under Ice. Basing trends off 200 years of records instead of 4 billion doesnt really seem like it will give an accurate view.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
What are the chances that there is global warming (man-made or other), that will cause all of the glaciers to melt, crazy weather, and other natural disasters that might end up destroying the atmosphere, blocking out the sun & causing the next ice age?

Is there a chance that this is what happened all of the other times? Is it a multiple step process?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join