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.

 

Climate Science, I’m Calling BS.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
There are quite a number of external references here and quite an amount of data. Some of this data of course is well known and has been covered in some threads previously. Some of the other sources herein point to data that I cannot find referenced here, particularly Ground Water and its significance to Sea Level Rise, and Plant Uptake of CO2 being 25% faster than previously thought. I have included all of these references to paint a clearer and more consistent picture.

In essence the purpose of this thread is to highlight the complexity of Climate Science and the fact, one that I have always maintained, that Climate Scientists know little to nothing about how the system that we call our Climate operates. The point is also to highlight the reality that Climate Science is not about our climate it’s about making money and supporting those addicted to it. As far as the climate scientists and their followers go however, think of them as though they are ELEtards screaming blue murder with little more than a skerrick of evidence then slowly dropping away as our understanding of things becomes much clearer.

So then, the Sun Causes Climate Change. Never thought of that as a possibility!

CERN Discovery

“CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.” from the article.

But then,

CERN Gag

“CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.” from the article

“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” Rolf-Dieter Heuer.

So then Solar Activity has a major impact on the Climate, this is old news.

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics

“All these predictions have turned out to be untenable. It is accepted that global temperature has risen by 0.5° C in the last hundred years. Yet during the last fifty years the temperature has remained approximately at the same level, even though 70% of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide contribution was injected into the atmosphere during this time.” from the article.

Now to CO2 itself.

Plant CO2 Absorbtion 25% Higher than thought.

“Scientists might be able to predict climate change with more accuracy after discovering that plants consume carbon dioxide 25 per cent faster than previously thought.” from the article.

Perhaps we adopt the old idea of NOT CUTTING DOWN FORRESTS and PLANT MORE TREES.
Twenty-Nine Reasons for Planting Trees.

What then of the physical and easily observable impacts of Climate Change, Sea Level Rise. An estimated 25% of Sea Level Rise is due to Ground Water being released into the sea. Wasn’t that meant to be just the Poles and Glaciers?

Ground Water Releases

“This is yet another paper that shows the interconnection among the components of the climate system. The attribution of a climate effect (in this case sea level rise) to just one cause (e.g. ocean warming and glacial melt due to positive radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is too narrow of a perspective.” from the article.

At this point I think it’s reasonable to conclude that all of the data and information we have been fed about climate change to date is at best a guess and at worst scaremongering of the highest order. I have and will always maintain that the system analysis of our climate is poor. When you become aware that some science is even omitted from the models for being “Too Complex” it leads one to consider the things and sub systems that are not known and therefore not included in the models. At the very least this should have you facepalming.

Let’s not forget though the actual mistakes though. Here is just one of more than I can count.

Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance

Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance

“Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations.” from the article.




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Now I think it is important that I make my point perfectly clear. Climate Science is BS, it’s not about the climate it’s about money and those individuals addicted to it. I have said previously, when you see the likes of George Soros at an environmental conference you would be wise to be concerned, very concerned.

Why then is it about money, is there not plenty of opportunity already. I know things are difficult at the moment and the future might not look so bright but give a few years and we should recover should we not?

World Economic Outlook Update

This document is fairly sizable and contains a dizzying amount of data. The basic summary is little to no growth seen through to 2020. From what I can discern at best somewhere around 4-5% growth and at worst 0-2%.

Surely you say, growth is growth, it may not be double digits but it is growth. Well I can tell you indeed that is true, but it’s just not enough for those addicted to money.

Carbon Spread Trading Surges 70%, Outpaces ICE Total CO2 Growth

“The 2011-2013 EU carbon spread contract today indicates a profit of around 12 percent by buying December futures and selling them in December 2013, according to prices on ICE. That’s compared with a 1.5 percent return for two-year euro interest-rate swaps.” from the article.

The ugly and brutal truth is that Carbon Markets are being developed solely to line the pockets of those who can afford to gamble. To me it is that simple. They just don’t like the idea of a pedestrian 0-5% growth rate, it’s just not enough of a fix.

There is also the potential for things to get completely out of hand.

Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy

“Two years ago, George Soros said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start - and no one seems to have noticed.” from the article.

Let us consider then the Australian proposal of a Carbon Tax. It is a tax and by the governments own admission will do nothing for the environment so what is the point. The point is that ultimately this tax will lead to a trading system of some description the explanation for which has already been spelt out.

Personally I have no issue with moving to a carbon neutral economy so long as it is for the purposes of moving us away from the use of finite resources, but please save me the BS about your climate science it’s starting to get irritating.

Cheers


edit on 29-9-2011 by myselfaswell because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 

The thing about plants consuming 25% more CO2 than previously believed is negated by the fact that we have been destroying countless forests. I know you suggest that we plant more trees, and I agree. The problem is we are not. We are doing the OPPOSITE.
That old argument the plants breathe CO2 so more CO2 is good for the environment is also negated by this fact. Plants get plenty of CO2. I think the stories of plants suffocating to death are few and far between, if there are any at all.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 



The thing about plants consuming 25% more CO2 than previously believed is negated by the fact that we have been destroying countless forests.

actually, most of the planet's oxygen comes from plant-like protists in the ocean.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


the fact is
climate change is irrelevant
its just media spin to keep our eyes of the real issues
the real issue is the fact we are using finite resources at a very high rate, taking them from the ground damaging nature..burning them does have obvious negative effects such as pollution, killing habitat and animals, high use of water for production, oil spills..the list goes on
why would we be using fossil fuels when we have so many efficient alternatives?
if we could use something safe and healthy over fossil fuels why argue over if it causes something that we could never really prove for another hundred or thousand years.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Ghost375
 



The thing about plants consuming 25% more CO2 than previously believed is negated by the fact that we have been destroying countless forests.

actually, most of the planet's oxygen comes from plant-like protists in the ocean.


Have you ever partly wondered why corn is so heavily subsidized as well?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Ghost375
 



The thing about plants consuming 25% more CO2 than previously believed is negated by the fact that we have been destroying countless forests.

actually, most of the planet's oxygen comes from plant-like protists in the ocean.


Have you ever partly wondered why corn is so heavily subsidized as well?

cause most of its gm?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I've listened to the arguments from every corner of this Earth, and they basically break down into three categories:

(1) “Global Warming is being caused by us, and we need to reduce our co2 levels in order to save the planet.”
(2) “Global Warming is natural and is happening all over the Solar System. We’re just going through the motions. Move along.”
(3) “There is no global warming. The world is the same as it always has been.”

That third group is especially notable by their naivety alone. The natural state of the world is much cooler than it is now. In essence, the world has spent more time locked in ice ages than it has in the milder climates we’ve been experiencing for the past few thousand years. So the world is very much not the same as it “always” has been.
However, with no offense to all of the above-mentioned groups, my position is this:
No matter what is going on in the world in regards to climate change, no one can argue that Air Quality is changing. Take a look at Los Angeles, or better yet China, where they wear respirators year round because of smog. Change how we handle our pollution because of that reason, if no other. Don’t worry about the ice caps and whether we’re causing their demise. Know we’re creating an atmosphere that’s un-breathable. There’s no science needed. The proof is in every bit of recent stock Hong Kong footage that’s been released over the past decade.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Think what you want to think. Turn your car engine on with the garage door shut and see how your evening plays out. But do that with planet earth, and it's no big deal, huh? I think we're screwing up the planet with all of this pollution. Sure, there are natural sources, but there are also unnatural sources as well, AKA humans.

Clean energy is the way to go regardless of your opinion on whether or not climate change is a natural or manmade phenomenon. Solar panels, wind power, hydroelectric power, hemp based fuel and other biodiesel natural fuels like vegetable oil, stuff like that could really do us all some good.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Pollution is pollution. The point is CO2 and the attempted brainwashing over the last decade or two that it's exclusively our fault.

Pollution will continue unabated because it's not CO2 and you cannot make money from pollution, you can work around it i.e. face masks and the like, but to get rid of it costs money.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by UniverSoul

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Ghost375
 



The thing about plants consuming 25% more CO2 than previously believed is negated by the fact that we have been destroying countless forests.

actually, most of the planet's oxygen comes from plant-like protists in the ocean.


Have you ever partly wondered why corn is so heavily subsidized as well?

cause most of its gm?


There's that plus the fact corn syrup is replacing most everything... Last but not least... Oxygen.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
No doubt glaciers are melting-- as they have been for thousands of years.

Little doubt that glaciers will return. First time in history we have been at this point in the cycle to observe it-- but data suggests it isn't due to anything we can control: upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Think what you want to think. Turn your car engine on with the garage door shut and see how your evening plays out. But do that with planet earth, and it's no big deal, huh? I think we're screwing up the planet with all of this pollution. Sure, there are natural sources, but there are also unnatural sources as well, AKA humans.

Clean energy is the way to go regardless of your opinion on whether or not climate change is a natural or manmade phenomenon. Solar panels, wind power, hydroelectric power, hemp based fuel and other biodiesel natural fuels like vegetable oil, stuff like that could really do us all some good.


I believe that car in the garage thing is Carbon monoxide-- not carbon dioxide.

Clean energy is a great idea, and nuclear power is available, but too expensive and too dangerous (by common opinion, not necessarily by technical reality). Nuclear also makes desalination and hydrogen fuel cell fuel a reasonable possibility. Expensive, but alone capable of meeting power (and other) needs.

None of the others (solar, wind) seem to be offering technical break-throughs hoped for-- at least not sufficient to indicate an end on reliance upon fossil fuels.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss

Two points toward your post:
  • The planet may very well be in the midst of a warm period, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. First of all, food production is directly tied to the length of growing seasons, which are then tied to average global temperatures. More food is not a bad thing.

    Secondly, humans themselves are better adapted to warmer rather than colder temperatures. Our bodies need to maintain an internal temperature of 98.6°F in order to function. The colder the surrounding air, the more energy must be expended to maintain this internal temperature. We have two mechanisms for combating cold temperature:
    shunting blood flow from the extremities, which can lead to frostbite, and shivering to burn energy through the musculature of the body. Neither of these are extremely efficient, which is why we have to wear clothing.

    If the surrounding temperature is too hot, on the other hand, we have evaporational cooling (sweating), which is very efficient at cooling the body down. We can also shunt blood flow to certain areas, such as the ears, in order to allow excess heat to leave the body. And finally, nature itself provides us with a third alternative: shade from the heat source (the sun).

    Civilization is believed to have originated around equatorial regions, the warmest areas of the planet; we have still not colonized the cold polar areas. This fact alone pays tribute to the fact that we are better prepared to handle heat than cold.

  • I know of no one who would disagree with you about pollution being a problem. But the examples you give are of smog, not of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a component of smog; smoke particles, nitrates, nitrides, sulfur dioxide, etc. are. Yet, the push seems to be to control carbon dioxide, not the components of smog. Indeed, carbon dioxide is so maligned in the press that I have spoken to those who believe it is poisonous, a carcinogen, and even those who would rid the planet of all carbon dioxide not realizing plant life depends on it (or that they are exhaling it).

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


You've illustrated my point exactly. The co2 isn't a problem. The issue lies within the smog. We (and by we, I mean those who create the smog) need to really cut back on emissions. Co2 isn’t doing much more than what it was designed to do, which is aerating the little green machines that, in an act of awesomeness, return the favor.
Also, I’m not contesting mankind's affinity for warmer climates. The lovely springy weather has been good to us, but let's not fool ourselves. The world (the exact ratio escapes me) is, for better or worse, 30% periods of warmth to 70% ice ages. At some point Momma Earth is going to relapse and we’re going to need to prepare for such an event. We’re talking ice thick enough to bury skyscrapers. Many will find it hard to plant corn on 1,500 feet of glacial terrain, and so (as you mentioned) most will flee to southern equatorial lands. Six billion people will now have to uproot and relocate, which will surely be a diplomatic nightmare, seeing that 90% of the world's population reside within the northern hemisphere.
My point is: for our time on this planet, we should be filling our days, not by poisoning ourselves, but in finding ever-cleaner methods of producing affordable energy. Leave the co2 to the plants and let the Earth do what she does. She’s quite adept at healing herself, but we have to give her a break via cleaning up our act (pun intended).

Thanks for the feedback. You’re my first official response.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Garkiniss

Two points toward your post:
  • The planet may very well be in the midst of a warm period, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. First of all, food production is directly tied to the length of growing seasons, which are then tied to average global temperatures. More food is not a bad thing.


More global warming doesn't contribute necessarily to longer growing seasons. In particular, excess nighttime temperatures (which is exactly what an enhanced greenhouse effect causes) is harmful to agriculture. This has been a problem in the recent USA heat wave in summer 2011.

In most of the planet, agriculture is limited by H20, not CO2, and climate change from global warming will alter the precipitation patterns in many places. Lots of infrastructure has been based on the stable climate for the last few hundred years, and this will be a big problem.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss

There is one good side to the smog problem, and it also illustrates your point. Smog contains molecules which tend to attract water molecules, 'seeding' the upper atmosphere to induce rain. Rain then washes most of the offending materials out of the air. Nature heals itself, as long as we don't continue to pollute it.

Progress is being made. Wave energy is promising, and the US has recently implemented strict sulfur and NOx regulations on commercial transportation, moving into line with many other countries. LA's smog problem has actually abated some (not enough IMO, but some) over the last decade or two. Is it enough to make a difference? Maybe; maybe not. Only time will tell.

First response, eh? Let me star that post so you remember it.


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel

More global warming doesn't contribute necessarily to longer growing seasons.

Er, yes it does.

The problems experienced recently, as you also point out, are due primarily not to heat but to a lack of water. This lack of water has many many potential causes, but is typically temporary. We had a severe drought a few years back, when Atlanta actually was draining the lake reservoirs it uses to near dry clay. This year has been wetter, and more importantly, has not seen a prolonged summer drought. The agriculture seems to have not gotten the memo that warm nights are harmful. Darn hardheaded corn...

Those droughts are also localized, not global. Overall, I don't think there are more agricultural failures today than in the past; we just hear about them more, thanks to an MSM with a penchant for disaster stories. If Iowa is having trouble, Kentucky is having a bumper year; if Tennessee is falling short of expectations, Kansas is producing like mad.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
The problem with topics like this, is there is a huge difference between climate change, discussed mostly as global warming, and man made global warming.

It is no secret that the Sahara Desert used to be fertile ground. Layers in the sand and rock have been found to contain grasses and skeletal remains of animals resembling various types of rodents.

Further, the Artic was shown to have been ice free and lush millions and millions of years ago.

None of the above could happen unless the Earth had a drastically different climate then than now. The Earth, at that time and during the time of the dinosaurs has been proven to be much warmer, much more lush, with an overall higher concentrated Oxygen level than we have on Earth now.

The above proves that climate change and huge fluctuations in temperature on Earth have existed millions and billions of years. The Earth was completely covered in ice at one time as well which demonstrates just how cold it reached on Earth.

With all of this having already occurred, much of it well before humans ever transversed the land, cut down a tree, or heated their homes with oil.

Are we really so egotistic that we think we prevent further climate change?
Are we really so important to the entire cycles that Earth has experienced throughout her history that we think, by planting some trees, we can alter her future? That we can prevent the Earth changes from ever happening again? Frankly, it's ridiculous in my opinion.

This is not to say we should go chopping down every forest or littering the Earth with even more of our junk. However, the reason is not climate change. The reason is that we are changing the ecosystems and potentially destroying natural resources that we need to survive.

The problem with placing the blame on humans for climate change is that, according to governments, the only way to fix it is to throw even more money at it. And the truth is, no matter how much money we throw at it, Earth WILL continue to change, and animals and humans will continue to evolve, as they have for the billions of years Earth has existed.

We should take care of the Earth and respect it. We should research and find clean energy because it is better for us and better for the Earth. But to do so under the guise of global warming and/or preventing climate change is hogwash in my opinion. All that money they are trying to siphon from the general public will be nothing more than a bottomless slush fund.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join