Heres proof Global Warming ( Climate Change) is a FRAUD!

reply to post by wcitizen


Yes spot on the thing is they want to extort money from people based on fraudulent claims of Anthropogenic(Human) Global Warming (Climate Change)

When in fact the effect humans have on the overall climate is so minimal. Check the Thread for various confirmations on this.

A very good write Mate with some convincing arguments.
As soon as I can I will upload my own views on this subject. you are obviously going to take some flack but as every day passes more and more people, scientists are starting to think this thru with a little more logic and coming up with the fact that Humans are NOT causing the world to heat up to the alarming levels that people like Al Gore predict
Cheers

reply to post by WhiteKnightOfAustralia


Thank you i am very grateful for your concurrence.
Everyday i see more articles in the News that expose the Global Warming (Climate Change) as a fraud.

People are waking up

Many might want to take a look at this video debunking Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change) Has a major effect on our overall climate because the fact is the Natural Processes of the Earths Natural C02 Release Dwarfs Humanities C02 emissions.

Plants love C02 and 80% of the worlds plants are in the Oceans *FACT*

Greens follow Political Agenda Carping Science-Climate-Change Skeptic

Not sure how to embed a video thats not from Youtube. or Google Video...

reply to post by XRaDiiX


** UPDATE** I UPLOADED VIDEO TO YOUTUBE HERE WE GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is nobody talking about ocean acidification?!

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing at an accelerating rate, primarily due to fossil fuel combustion and land use change. A substantial fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is absorbed by the oceans, resulting in a reduction of seawater pH. Continued acidification may over time have profound effects on marine biota and biogeochemical cycles. Although the physical and chemical basis for ocean acidification is well understood, there exist few field data of sufficient duration, resolution, and accuracy to document the acidification rate and to elucidate the factors governing its variability. Here we report the results of nearly 20 years of time-series measurements of seawater pH and associated parameters at Station ALOHA in the central North Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. We document a significant long-term decreasing trend of −0.0019 ± 0.0002 y−1 in surface pH, which is indistinguishable from the rate of acidification expected from equilibration with the atmosphere. Superimposed upon this trend is a strong seasonal pH cycle driven by temperature, mixing, and net photosynthetic CO2 assimilation. We also observe substantial interannual variability in surface pH, influenced by climate-induced fluctuations in upper ocean stability. Below the mixed layer, we find that the change in acidification is enhanced within distinct subsurface strata. These zones are influenced by remote water mass formation and intrusion, biological carbon remineralization, or both. We suggest that physical and biogeochemical processes alter the acidification rate with depth and time and must therefore be given due consideration when designing and interpreting ocean pH monitoring efforts and predictive models.

Ocean Acidification

What do you think will happen as the ocean continues to acidify?! Are you honestly going to tell me that this isn't a tremendous cause for concern??

The current debate on the connection between CO2 emissions and climate change has largely overlooked an independent and equally serious problem, the increasing acidity of our oceans. Last December, the respected journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH [1], through to the end of the century [2]. In 2095, the projected average ocean surface pH is 7.8, and lower still in the Arctic Ocean.

Ocean Acidification: Global Warming's Evil Twin

It's a very easy intuition to see that as life struggles to adapt in the ocean's, it will find it's way to migrate on land, just as our great, great ancestors did eons ago. One of the main problems with what we're doing to the environment, is that micro-organisms evolve much faster than us, and we're speeding up this process. Are you ready for insanely detrimental fungal infections?! Anybody, anybody?

Here's a flick for the visual learners:




This thread makes me want to

reply to post by XRaDiiX

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
reply to post by Stratus9

 

Put this in your pipe and smoke it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/784dafe5c576.gif[/atsimg]

Ugggh...I can't believe I'm getting sucked back into this thread. But I'm getting pretty tired of seeing you throw these graphs around [snip] when you clearly have no idea what you're even talking about. It was amusing at first, now it's just hella lame-o.

Let's examine [snip]:

First the above graph. According to this highly credible looking (and I'm sure 100% honest) "geocraft.com" site you keep referencing, this is where it is sourced from:
gcrio.org...

So why don't you stop jumping around telling people how much more clued in you are than them for a second and try reading the caption for this graph:

Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in°C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.

Similarly for the other graph you keep hilariously posting, here:
gcrio.org...

Air temperature near Antarctica for the last 150,000 years. Temperatures given are inferred from hydrogen/deuterium ratios measured in an ice core from the Antarctic Vostok station, with reference to the value for 1900.

Temperatures around Antarctica. This is not a global data set. To get a global data set you need to compile data from around the globe. Meanwhile here's what the data looks like from the other side of the planet (Greenland):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a812e4e6dc26.gif[/atsimg]

Source

And before you go chuckling to yourself about how this graph doesn't show any modern warming either, try thinking a little harder about what the term "with reference to the value for 1900" means.

It means that 0°C point, where both of your graphs STOP - is the value for temperature 111 YEARS AGO - not today. So in case you haven't noticed, it's gotten a tad bit warmer since then. Similarly, the Greenland graph I just posted above - only goes up to 1855 (95 years before 1950).

That's mainly because these are paleoclimatic reconstructions that scientists don't use much for measuring the warming of the last 100 years, since they have much better methods for that, like thermometers and satellites.

So here - here's what a more accurate depiction of modern warming looks like:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84d80e995592.png[/atsimg]

Source

That graph is up to date with the most modern research (the ones you posted were 20 years old for crying out loud, do you know how much the science has improved since then?) and it is built off numerous data sets and it comes straight from the scientists, not some blatantly cherry-picking, denialist website trying to filter the information for you.


So put THAT in YOUR pipe and smoke it.


Also, the whole "it was warmer before" argument has absolutely no bearing on whether current warming is caused by man. To think so suggests a mind that doesn't have much room for complex thought beyond the most superficial reasoning and observation.

The theory for current warming is not based on watching temperatures change and trying to blame it on something. It is based on understanding the physics that dictate this effect, physics that are so well understood that as I already showed you earlier in this thread a 4th grader can reproduce. This is also why it was predicted that more CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to more warming a very long time ago. That paper is from 1896 - right around the time the warming started, and your silly graphs ended.


...
Anyway, as before I still have no interest in wasting my time schooling [snip] because - oh wow they read about it on the internet, so that means it must be true!!!...

I just can't stand foolish belittling and arrogance.

I mean it's much more plausible that all the world's scientists have gotten together to orchestrate this big hoax to enslave us, by getting everyone off of things like oil that the real "powers that be" already use to enslave us right?

Yeah, that makes much more sense than the idea that maybe there's just a bunch of idiots on the internet, feeding all these other gullible idiots on the internet a whole bunch of disinformation - information that when you do some REAL research, and some REAL critical thinking, and some REAL following of the money - you'll find always leads to the same dirty source:

Big Oil creates phony climate denial site, lies about it
Where global climate change denier scientists come from.
Climate sceptic 'misled Congress over funding from oil industry'
Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers
"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine


Stop jumping around [snip] get a clue [snip].

reply to post by unityemissions


You're forgetting one little factor. The Natural Processes of the Earth emit 40 times as much C02 as overall combined Human release of C02 . Also

C02 levels on Earth were much higher in the past actually 18,000 years ago they were much higher. I think your little video isn't much cause for concern its more propoganda than anything see graphs above and actually read the thread.

Or better yet i'll link the graphs here for u

So before you go championing a false idea purported by your notable scientist take a look a the history of C02 in the past thousands of years and figure out how life has made it through just fine.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0893133fa50a.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by mc_squared


You're graphs of modern warming only goes back 2000 years it doesn't even properly show the much warmer temperature that have happened in the recent past.

Hrm wonder why you left that part out?

Also funny how you left the part out after the year 2000 because the temperature spike goes down after than into a cooling trend.

So whos skewing the Data now?

Here i'm going to show you the Modern Data also with Relation to past climate data of Global Temperature Anomalies.

This first one might Satiate your needs since its once of the most up to date Global Temperature Anomlay i could Find. Notice the Spike in Temperature Around 210 and on We beginning to enter the Solar Maximum. Part of an 11 year Solar Cycle.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/db62e312bfaf.png[/atsimg]

Suns Strange Behavior Baffles Astronomers.

An expected minimum of solar activity, between 2008 and 2009, was unusually deep. And while the sun would normally ramp up activity by now, heading into its next cycle, the sun may be on the verge of a weak solar cycle instead, astronomers said at the 216th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Miami last month.

Solar Cycle 24


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7feb990785a.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3ba2d22453a.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/108e8877483c.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0589e846ac0.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9347dcbbfef5.png[/atsimg]

And the Final great one putting the Nail in the coffin
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b4d86b570fb.png[/atsimg]

Ice Age

****** NOTE THE MUCH HIGHER TEMPERATURES 120,000-130,000 YEARS AGO COMPARED TO PRESENT******* DURING THE LAST INTER-GLACIAL PERIOD NO INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY EXISTED AT THAT TIME


Most Al Gore Sheep like yourself like to use a graph that only goes to the year 2000 because it fairly suits their Agenda when the Temperature spiked in the late 90's


Your Graph is Actually Incredibly Misleading; up until only 2000; Can i say DECEIVING?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae2605948363.png[/atsimg]

Lets try the actual graph up to the Present.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/db62e312bfaf.png[/atsimg]

OP, Yours is a good thread, good OP, worthy information.

But I don't believe it entirely. Wishful thinking? Like, "there is nothing we can do, it's out of our hands"; while
attempting to absolve ourselves from the contributions we make through our damaging lifestyles.

Now mind you, I'm not saying "you" personally, because it is all of us.

It's like smoking cigarettes.
It's not this *one* cigarette that is going to kill you, no, it's the accumulation, so no harm done if you just have this *one*. What difference does it make?

We won't accept what's happening and our role in it until we are on the precipice of destruction. It's our nature. We're very complicated creatures. We can live but a few minutes without air, and yet we pollute it.

We can't live without Earth, and yet we fracture it, day after day, hour after hour.

Of course it has a cumulative effect.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Exactly the only thing is; is that i'm trying to show people the meager effect humans have and that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change) ) Is a Fraud.

Because when you take in all the Data throughout the Entirety of the Thread and discussions; we begin to see that the Temperature Fluctuations on Planet Earth is the Norm This is what Normally Occurs on Earth.

It has been Throughout Earths History.

They want to instill Cap and Trade and Driving Tax etc to profit from a fraudulent Notion; That AGW is the main cause of Climate Fluctuation.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b4d86b570fb.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0893133fa50a.gif[/atsimg]

But we begin to see that AGW is not the major factor in Climate Fluctuation throughout Earths History these Temperature Changes have happened time and time again.

Its up to the Reader to come up with their own discernment on how much we effect the climate and when we in-fact only contribute less than 4% of the Earths C02 Emissions the other 96+% is from Natural Processes on Earth We can see that the major Cause of Change is not Human Emissions.

C02 is not the worst substance either. We take a look at the C02 graphs. We may be heading into the next Ice Age within a few thousand years.

reply to post by unityemissions


The Total Mass of the hydrosphere is 1 quintillion 400 quadrillion tons approximately which is 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons.

Ocean: Physical Properties


Now a look at the atmosphere Concentration of C02

notice the Change in ppm of average 387 ppm to only 390ppm another 3ppm in the highest concentrated areas of C02 on earth really PPM(PARTS PER MILLION)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2f6ad945bb3.png[/atsimg]

Carbon exists in the Earth's atmosphere primarily as the gas carbon dioxide (CO2). Although it is a small percentage of the atmosphere (approximately 0.04% on a molar basis), it plays a vital role in supporting life

Carbon Cycle

Was pre-industrial CO2 lower than today? This graph shows the most important measurements of CO2. The red curve is the Keeling curve of actual CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. It is paralleled by similar measurements elsewhere, all located by the ocean. Although CO2 concentrations there vary remarkably, a procedure is in place to record minimum values, considered 'the background level'. In recent years, this 'adjustment' has been so perfect that natural variations are no longer visible [1]. Is this fraud? Preceding the Keeling curve, are precise chemical measurements done over a period of 150 years. They too show enormous noise but also a consistent swing (the green curve). This would have been unacceptable to the CAWG theory. Fortunately CO2 bubbles can be found in ice cores like that from the Siple dome (brown). But it refuses to join up with the Keeling curve. So it was shifted by 83 years, because the first 50 metres (4.5 bar) consist of loose firn rather than closed bubbles (is somewhat defensible). The corrected Siple curve spliced onto the Keeling curve gave the IPCC the perfect IPCC hockey stick for carbondioxide.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7891563e32ba.gif[/atsimg]

The Siple curve is smooth because the ice core data is not a year by year measurement for each depth. It is measurements of a range of layers, which are not linearly connected. They then construct a CO2 average for each year. This means that each year of data points is not a measurement; it’s a calculation of disjointed averages. Hence any year over year specific changes in CO2 will be lost. But many scientists disagree, as expressed by Prof Jaworowsky: indeed CO2 gas dissolves readily in ice under pressure, forming clathrates; drilling contaminates cores with drilling fluid while forming cracks; as ice cores relax, dissolved CO2 gas from clathrates expands and forms new bubbles; gas escapes from ice cores (likewise for nitrogen and oxygen at different 'dissociation' pressures); average pre-industrial CO2 concentration was around 330ppmv, not 260.[1] Another fact is that CO2 is 70 times more soluble in water/ice than nitrogen and 30x more than oxygen. In other words, CO2 disappears from bubbles in ice over a period of up to a millennium, thereby falsely lowering the CO2 readings. It also diffuses through the ice, thereby effectively smoothing natural variations. This is also borne out by CO2 levels in other warm inter-glacial periods. Also archaeological studies of leaf remains show that their breathing pores (stomata) did not adjust to lower CO2 levels.

The Keeling curve does not measure average CO2 but minimum CO2.
the IPCC bases its claim on a single ice core(but other ice cores also show lower concentrations).
there is no proof that the measured low CO2 is indeed real and accurate.
conflicting evidence exists.
during the ice ages CO2 levels were indeed lower but not as low as suggested by air bubbles in ice cores.
the world is still recovering from last ice age.
carbondioxide is enormously beneficial to life. See chapter 5 Greening Planet.
volcanism appears to control CO2 levels in the past.
IPCC claims are wrong.

SeaFriends: Extraordinary Proof


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f45582ffaed.gif[/atsimg]

Important points:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/50986aa0800e.gif[/atsimg]

Climate swings have progressively become worse over 5 million years. The last ice age is on left. Further back in time even warmer climates occurred. The IPCC hockey stick would not be visible on this scale.

You simply lack understanding.

I can't help you.

Your own data points to different conclusions than you reach, but you can't make the connections.

reply to post by unityemissions


The Siple curve is smooth because the ice core data is not a year by year measurement for each depth. It is measurements of a range of layers, which are not linearly connected. They then construct a CO2 average for each year. This means that each year of data points is not a measurement; it’s a calculation of disjointed averages. Hence any year over year specific changes in CO2 will be lost. But many scientists disagree, as expressed by Prof Jaworowsky: indeed CO2 gas dissolves readily in ice under pressure, forming clathrates; drilling contaminates cores with drilling fluid while forming cracks; as ice cores relax, dissolved CO2 gas from clathrates expands and forms new bubbles; gas escapes from ice cores (likewise for nitrogen and oxygen at different 'dissociation' pressures); average pre-industrial CO2 concentration was around 330ppmv, not 260.[1] Another fact is that CO2 is 70 times more soluble in water/ice than nitrogen and 30x more than oxygen. In other words, CO2 disappears from bubbles in ice over a period of up to a millennium, thereby falsely lowering the CO2 readings. It also diffuses through the ice, thereby effectively smoothing natural variations. This is also borne out by CO2 levels in other warm inter-glacial periods. Also archaeological studies of leaf remains show that their breathing pores (stomata) did not adjust to lower CO2 levels.

The Keeling curve does not measure average CO2 but minimum CO2.
the IPCC bases its claim on a single ice core(but other ice cores also show lower concentrations).
there is no proof that the measured low CO2 is indeed real and accurate. conflicting evidence exists.
during the ice ages CO2 levels were indeed lower but not as low as suggested by air bubbles in ice cores.
the world is still recovering from last ice age.
carbondioxide is enormously beneficial to life. See chapter 5 Greening Planet.
volcanism appears to control CO2 levels in the past. IPCC claims are wrong.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0893133fa50a.gif[/atsimg]



This graph really blows your movie out of the Water on the dangers of Ocean PH too doesn't it
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f45582ffaed.gif[/atsimg]

I don't know how you don't see it
Notice how much higher the C02 levels were in the past and the planet was thriving with life

-Permian
-Jurassic
-Triassic
-Cretacious
-Carboniferous
-Devonian
-Silurian
-Ordovician

As a staunch CAGW-sceptic, admittedly, begrudgingly, I have to agree with mc_squared as far as these arguments go. Temperature in Antarctica is regional, as distinct from a global phenomenon and cannot be taken scientifically as an index of global warming. Perhaps you would do better citing Craig loehle's graph comprised of 18-non tree-ring temperature proxies from numerous continents depicting global temperature as being higher than today thousands of years ago in the MWP. That said, I'm not a big fan of comparing paleoclimate data to our modern-climate because 1) there is no way these measurements from paleoclimate data can be standardised by reference to direct empirical measurements and 2) it has been shown experimentally using noble gases and electrical conductivity that ice-core underestimates atmospheric CO2. Instead of resorting to paleoclimate evidence that can't really tell us anything about our modern glacial period, all we need to do to get an absolute measurement of the CO2-greenhouse effect is to measure the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) incoming/outgoing radiative-imbalance on CO2 absorption-wavelengths (although to the best of my knowledge this has yet to be done). Simple. By that we can infer CO2's absolute warming effect. All of this stuff with paleoclimate data, while interesting, unfortunately, can't prove anything.

The Keeling curve does not measure average CO2 but minimum CO2

What makes you say this?

reply to post by Nathan-D


Check posts above for more information you missed out on the newer posts.

Also the Keeling posts

See here for further Information on their Skewing and Not showing how C02 fluctuations are normal.

themigrantmind.blogspot.com...

Sure the C02 is rising but thats actually normal.

Thing is They blindly think that the Earth is supposed to stay the same but the fact is the Earths climate is constantly changing thats the NORM

Oh and on that matter the previous Cycle of Ice Ages can actually tell us a hell of a lot because the Environment is meagerly effected by Human Emissions.

So whats your point??????? Just look at the graphs and come to your discernment either that or you can just ignore the DATA

An interesting point to note in the Keeling Data is that they are taking the Data in Hawaii of all Places so the Volcanic Eruptions severely would effect the Data in favour of making it seem as if there was more C02 being added into the atmosphere than normal.

POINT TAKEN

reply to post by XRaDiiX

We must come to our own discernment based on the facts and evidence i have presented.

Actually I do not NEED you facts. Its 2:30 in the afternoon in North Carolina on a sunny day and I am FREEZING MY BUTT OFF and have been all week. Normally the temp would be hitting 90F (Yes I looked it up.) 2004 had 17 above 90F days (two @98F) but 2010 had only 4 @ a wimpy 91F

You might get a chuckle out of my Ultimate Conspiracy Theory!

reply to post by XRaDiiX


i knew it was a fraud after i crapped in a empty fish bowl and covered it...
ten minutes later...
cold...lol

reply to post by crimvelvet


Lol thank you for your input i'll take a loon man.

Yeah remember the Snowpocalypse in the Eastern United States a few years back... Haahaha

reply to post by violence=answer


Lol; funny addition to the thread. But i don't seem to gather your meaning

*(Guess you were being sarcastic)*