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.

 

CONFIRMED: Global Warming 'Ended 15 Years Ago'

page: 13
75
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


So, does that mean that the glaciers have been growing since 1997 instead of disappearing and nobody noticed?


Well that depends on if you photograph and study them in the summer months as opposed to the winter months.



Nah. It actually means that they've been receding since the Ice Age ended around 11,000 years ago - 1997 has nothing to do with disappearing glaciers. Temporary temperature fluctuations don't mean very much as long as they don't fall below the threshold where an ice age returns. We're either in an ice age or we're not. If we are, glaciers build, if we're not, they recede. Yearly fluctuations don't have much influence over geologic scales.




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

You need specific mechanisms, observational evidence and theoretical consistency stronger than the current understanding. not just "well, maybe it's the fungus's fault!" random ramblings.

Note that greenhouse warming from human changes in atmosphere is a specific mechanistic cause, not correlation, backed by extremely solid chemistry & physics verified in the lab.
edit on 30-1-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


Well, since you have such a high standard for evidence, why dont you produce evidence the the contrary?

Your position must be completely defensible, for you to say something like that!



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


So, does that mean that the glaciers have been growing since 1997 instead of disappearing and nobody noticed?


Well that depends on if you photograph and study them in the summer months as opposed to the winter months.



Sorry what?? Glaciers have been receding for decades! There is plenty of photographic evidence of this. It doesn't matter one iota if you take your pics in the summer OR winter - the results are the same - rapidly receding glaciers world-wide. Period.


Decades? Glaciers have been receding for thousands of years, since the end of the Ice Ages, not just "decades". The Little Ice Age, around 1600+/- a couple hundred years, probably slowed that down considerably, but now that it's over, it's back to business as usual.

Right now, the Earth is at it's lowest temperature in 450 million years:



"Global Warming" my ass. Oh noes! Everyone run around the room, waving their hands over their heads - heresies have been spoken here!



edit on 2012/1/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
I found this article over at WUWT and thought I would share ... Alaska On The Rocks wattsupwiththat.com...-55531 wattsupwiththat.com...-55531


From the “weather is not climate” department, the sea ice is in early and thick in Alaska. It makes me shiver just to look at the picture. They had to use an icebreaker to get fuel to Nome. ps I posted this in another thread the mods might close so I shall put it here ..peace

edit on 29-1-2012 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)


I checked the link out and WOW .. read this snippet.. MY BOLDING



The Bering Sea ice this year is in early, and it’s thick. Not only that, it’s moving south fast. The crab fleet has some $8 million dollars of gear in the water, and the ice is moving south at twenty miles a day. Usually ice comes in later and thinner, and moves south at three miles a day. Boats are tied up to the Dutch Harbor docks. At St. Paul Island, out of the photo to the left, the crab


global warming my arse.
More like global schizophrenia

b



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


What's more reliable, layers and layers of earth evidence, or 100 years of so called data that has no real solid validity?
I'll go with millions of years of climate data in the rocks.


It would be a good place to put your money indeed. I also like ice core samples. But the problem the scientists are facing is the added variable of humans' influx of co2.

Most scientists are on the same consensus that humans are causing an affect that is adding to the warming that is occurring on the planet.

You see co2 causes warming. We are dumping lots of co2 into the atmosphere and chopping down the trees that consume the co2 and so therefore causing an influx of co2 which causes warming, its a no-brainer.

But the problem is there is a cycle that happens where the earth naturally gets warmer and cooler and we are in the warm cycle at the moment, so it is hard to judge how much of the warming cycle is natural and how much is caused by humans.


-Alien



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42

Originally posted by mbkennel

You need specific mechanisms, observational evidence and theoretical consistency stronger than the current understanding. not just "well, maybe it's the fungus's fault!" random ramblings.

Note that greenhouse warming from human changes in atmosphere is a specific mechanistic cause, not correlation, backed by extremely solid chemistry & physics verified in the lab.
edit on 30-1-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


Well, since you have such a high standard for evidence, why dont you produce evidence the the contrary?

Your position must be completely defensible, for you to say something like that!


I think you're mistaken, I believe the consensus scientific analysis of the situation, evidence in tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers, is correct.

If there is some other "natural cycle" which trumps the existing consensus explanation, that is where one needs strong new evidence and analysis. Because natural cycles have observational consequences and specific physical mechanisms as well.

In any case, even if current scientific understanding is not complete (it never is), it is far better to base policy based on that (given historical success of science since say 1850 vs other approaches) as the best currently available option.

Would you ride in an aircraft or live next to a nuclear station designed by somebody whose theories were considered pretty much totally wrong by 98% of the scientific experts in the field? I wouldn't.
edit on 31-1-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

But the problem is there is a cycle that happens where the earth naturally gets warmer and cooler and we are in the warm cycle at the moment, so it is hard to judge how much of the warming cycle is natural and how much is caused by humans.


Well, the extra heat flux is pretty well computable knowing facts about the atmosphere and properties of greenhouse gas molecules in different conditions, and these are well settled now.

So you have an idea about an input which you KNOW is happening and its quantitative magnitude. It's somewhat more difficult to get to the output consequence but far from impossible, and there is lots of work on this.

And in any case I'm not aware of evidence (could be wrong) that there was significant steady warming from say 8000 years ago until 1750 (start of coal) from this "natural cycle".



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

But the problem is there is a cycle that happens where the earth naturally gets warmer and cooler and we are in the warm cycle at the moment, so it is hard to judge how much of the warming cycle is natural and how much is caused by humans.


Well, the extra heat flux is pretty well computable knowing facts about the atmosphere and properties of greenhouse gas molecules in different conditions, and these are well settled now.

So you have an idea about an input which you KNOW is happening and its quantitative magnitude. It's somewhat more difficult to get to the output consequence but far from impossible, and there is lots of work on this.

And in any case I'm not aware of evidence (could be wrong) that there was significant steady warming from say 8000 years ago until 1750 (start of coal) from this "natural cycle".


Looking at this ice core sample graph it appears that it has been warming for roughly the past 20 thousand years.
Look here.

-Alien



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


This is the graph on the link you gave.

i.dailymail.co.uk...

From 1997 most of the temperatures have been HIGHER than 1997!
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
I will let the pictures do the TALKING!

nrmsc.usgs.gov...

images.sciencedaily.com...

justanapprentice.files.wordpress.com...

scrippsnews.ucsd.edu...

Care to explain why this is happening all round the world!
Why glaciers around the world are a shadow of their former self!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

Originally posted by ShamilAbdullah
Heh, so silly to see people argue over this. Hey look at the positive side , at least it made people aware
and from that awareness. Maybe we can see positive change to this planet . Weather its true or not


I see what you did there.


You seen nothing of the sort annon



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
This is in response to no one or everyone. Or even totally after going through more than three pages of this debate and the black/white replies. My only question is: For all the nay-Sayers and supporters, do we judge in extremes where we say man either has absolutely no influence on the environment or absolute influence over it? I'm honestly terribly confused. All creatures have an impact on their environment. Some live within their environment, others destroy it and move onto different pastures. Humans have to nearly demolish more than three fourths of the environments they inhabit to take notice where other species would get a clue sooner. At the same time, they're not responsible for all the ills of the natural world. Worlds have natural systems of ebb and flow. But large groups can add to the pollution of those systems over time and habitual actions.

I guess my only point is so many people are so freaking polar opposites it's insane and goes beyond logic sometimes. Mr Gore (or Bore as so many of you cutely say - and don't take this as a defense - I'm an old school, 80s metal head who stopped liking anything in relation to the Gore name when his wife decided she should dictate my musical appetites over my own parents' opinion- I tend to be annoyed by that whole collective) tried to make a point and other people attempted to counteract him. We're a wasteful species who collect a lot of trash. Just look at the s**t-pools in Nigeria where so many country's trash goes to and those people tend to it and it becomes their way of life. For all the pretty in the world there is a counter-view of ugly. I just hate absolute polar opinions. Ok, we're not going into a global melt-down. Hey! Perhaps we're not really going into a full-on natural new ice age either! Whoo-freaking hoo! Still, where is your garbage going every week? Have you ever thought to multiply it by the thousands in your city? Have you scanned out far enough to see it from a state view? A country view? What is happening to the chemicals you pour into the air daily too? I know people who won't recycle a stupid plastic container because they won't be crippled by the hippy-enviromental sect. I know a whole collective of people who would completely ban deer hunting in MI because it's so awful and cruel -despite the fact that humans have cut out so many natural predators to the deer that we get overwhelmed with deer in a year that our gardens/crops are plowed over by them. Hey, simple flowers -hell, I placed flowers on my mom's grave one day to see deer eating them an hour later. Thoughtful creatures seem to destroy the natural flow of checks and balances in nature. Daily. Then they're good enough to preach about how their interactions are good or bad despite what the glaring result of it is.

I love this website, but so many of you polar-opinionated people annoy the hell out of me. Everyone has strong opinions based on their beliefs and crap they've read. I meet so few who live in the gray and understand that life seems to be stuck somewhere in between. There are consequences to the lives we lead. There is truth found in many of the strong opinions, but perhaps Gore's intended global melt-down is sensationalism, just as people who think humans have no impact on the environment are just freaking morons who ignore basic science of life and an environment scenes. Bleh!!

I'm an artist, that is my life. I don't lead a carbon-footprint-free lifestyle. But neither am I so ignorant to damage I might cause upon my surroundings. You can take my work and opinions and/or leave it. I take part in so few conversions for the amount of people who have called me an idiot for simply stating an opinion. And every third major post I read from the front page sounds off like smart people who are wicked ridiculous in their opinions for no other reason than to be contrary to some other group. This planet suffers more with every month humans continue to mass produce and ignore any type of responsible behavior that lower level thinking species acknowledge out of instinct -beyond pure parasites. Damn people, get an f'ing clue. The last time I spoke my true opinion a lot of members were good to tell me (privately) what a massive moron I was for just having an opinion. That alone worries me for humans. But seriously, I read these boards and wonder what the hell is wrong with humans here. "I'm glad I got to laugh at your fear-mongering on global warming!! Ha to you!! We're entering another ice age!! Doesn't that show you?!!" - "But wait! We're all going down because we're green housing the hell out of the world! Poop on your ice age people!!" What? Both are BAD!!!

God, what is wrong with you people?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


HAHAHA


DID YOU REALLY TAKE THAT DENIER ARTICLE SERIOUSLY???

It is RIFE with pseudo-scientific idiocy, straw-men, false claims, exaggerations, bad data, misinterpretation... god I feel like a broken record with this stuff... but DENIERS KEEP ON SPOUTING THE SAME GARBAGE REHASHED OVER AND OVER!!! It's funny how the guy uses a bogus chart to show only the last 15 years... and then somehow use it to say there's "no more global warming". What the author of the article FAILS to realize is that that TEN HOTTEST YEARS ON RECORD HAVE ALL BEEN WITHIN THE LAST 15 YEARS. The claim that warming stopped in 1998 has already been debunked over and over... and not only that, but 1998 was beaten for hottest year on record TWICE SINCE if I'm not mistaken.

The author of that bogus article is David Rose... a known BSer and climate denier who is guilty of terrible skewing of facts and outright lying:


www.sourcewatch.org...


David Rose is a British journalist who by his own admission served as a conduit for intelligence disinformation[1] on both sides of the Atlantic. Three of his stories, based on alarmist testimony from INC defectors and asserting an Iraq-al-Qaida link, played a key role in selling the Iraq war. Rose has also repeatedly written articles misquoting scientists on climate change


Daily Mail Slammed for Ignoring Scientific Truth We’re Still Warming and Human Emissions Will Dwarf Any Solar Changes


Tiresome Climate Misinformation In Wall Street Journal & Daily Mail Debunked


New British Studies Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Gets It Totally Wrong


David Rose's climate science writing shows he has not learned from previous mistakes


Daily Mail Fabricates Claim That There’s Been 15 Years Of No Global Warming, Despite Hottest Decade In History


Need any more proof that your article and your assumptions are rooted in complete and UTTER BS, TrueAmerican??



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
hi to you all

i have been reading all your comments with some attention, and im happy that most of you guys are informed about this issue, im sory about my english though

i study environment engenearing at portugal, and i must say alot has been discussed and there is alot of bad information around the internet. first of all, you shouldnt bealive everything you read on wikipedia. every college student knows that wikipedia isnt a reliable source to trust. im not saying that all information in there is wrong, but you really should think about reading real studys and not some wikipedia posts.

now about the global warming issue. has a student, i still am ceptic about this issue. i dont know if global warming is real, if temperature rising is human related or not. unfourtnly there isnt enought investment in this type of areas, has you guys know goverment are more councerned about profit then the climate or human rights or whatever things that dont reach there pockets - blame capitalism society.

anyways, what i wanted to say is that global warming is the last scenario we should be councerned at this time. greenhouse effect is real for shure, but global warming is the least of its problems.

first of all, for those who say CO2 isnt a problem becouse trees feed from it, your terribly wrong. think about this. there is a "normal" concentration of CO2 on the atmosphere. trees catch it and transform it into tissue and O2, trhough photosyntesis. but this cycle is a closed one. what humans do is to put more CO2 into the cycle. CO2 that was traped in fossil fuels. fossil fuels are very old forests that decomposed on certain conditions of pressure and temperature. when we use this source of energy we release more CO2 into the "normal" cycle, this CO2 wasnt in the cycle before, so what we are doing is overloading the cycle, there will be (if not yet) a time when the cycle cant transform more CO2 into tissue and O2. its a simple logic.

second. greenhouse gases do not only give us the so called "global warming". they pollute our soils, our food and our water. most important, OUR OCEANS. ( i think the ocean has it acidity increased like 20% in the past 50 years, im not sure about this number)

CO2 reacts with H20 forming an acid called "carbonic acid" if im not mistaken. our oceans are currently becoming more acid every year, and thats is not good. humans get about 80% of their food from the ocean, and what this carbonic acid does to the ocean is a complex thing that ill try to explain to you.

when the carbonic acid is formed, it ruins the plancton shells. plancton is the "basis" of the ocean life. every little fish, or giant fish, or water mammal relys on them to survive. its a pyramid of life. they are the first on the food chain. if they disapear, all life disapears. plancton shells are made of calcium carbonate. this acid reacts with it and dissolves the shells, and plancton cant survive without it. so what is trully happening is this, and for me, its the biggest problem will face in the near future.

are there other problems? yes there are. i will mention some but im not explianing them in detail, you guys should google it.

- decreasing on the ozone layer due to flurorine based compounds (mostly from combustion).
- have you ever noticed, for instance in new york city, the increase in ASMA and other deaseases realted to air pollution?

etc etc etc..

have a good day, Nuno



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I guess all the melting sea ice in the arctic, allowing ships to use the Northwest Passage, are mistaken in their behavior. I guess the recent snowy owl migration, never before seen where it is, is a fluke. I guess the tropical diseases heading north and the flora and fauna changes in region and altitude are imaginary, as are the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park, predicted to be gone entirely in the near future is just pure chance. Huh. I guess you can count on the media or certain reports, contradicting physical evidence, for the truth!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by agentedapixota

first of all, for those who say CO2 isnt a problem becouse trees feed from it, your terribly wrong. think about this. there is a "normal" concentration of CO2 on the atmosphere. trees catch it and transform it into tissue and O2, trhough photosyntesis. but this cycle is a closed one. what humans do is to put more CO2 into the cycle. CO2 that was traped in fossil fuels. fossil fuels are very old forests that decomposed on certain conditions of pressure and temperature. when we use this source of energy we release more CO2 into the "normal" cycle, this CO2 wasnt in the cycle before, so what we are doing is overloading the cycle, there will be (if not yet) a time when the cycle cant transform more CO2 into tissue and O2. its a simple logic.



Exactly. those fossil fuels are releasing the CO2 that was trapped in ancient plants. It was trapped in them because there was quite a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in those days (about 5 times the current level), which in turn promoted plant growth - otherwise, the plants would not have been there to trap the CO2 in the first place. The cycle is not as closed as it appears - more CO2 promotes more plant growth, and the cycle expands.

Interestingly, there was a lot more oxygen in those days as well, because of all the plant life pumping out oxygen. 33%-35%, compared with the modest modern level of 21%. That's half again as much oxygen as we have now. One of the unfortunate side effects of that was an increase in combustibility - there were endemic forest fires in the tropical rain forest that covered most of the planet.

people ought to worry more about the oxygen production, because of the fires. O2 is far more dangerous that CO2. Strangely, I don't hear the alarmists yelling about how we need to decrease the oxygen in our atmosphere. I guess maybe if Al Gore campaigns for a "fire tax", they'll all jump on board that bandwagon.

In the mean time, I can't see how an increase in plant coverage (other than the concurrent increase in O2 production) and an increase in the hydrological cycle can be seen as a bad thing. More greenery and more water are BAD things now?

While our current temperatures likely ARE increasing, and have been for the last 20,000 years or so, we are still well below the average temperature of the Earth for most of it's lifetime, and in fact the current average temperatures - even though they are on the rise - are STILL the lowest that they have been in 450 million years, .









edit on 2012/1/31 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaxnmarko
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I guess all the melting sea ice in the arctic, allowing ships to use the Northwest Passage, are mistaken in their behavior. I guess the recent snowy owl migration, never before seen where it is, is a fluke. I guess the tropical diseases heading north and the flora and fauna changes in region and altitude are imaginary, as are the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park, predicted to be gone entirely in the near future is just pure chance. Huh. I guess you can count on the media or certain reports, contradicting physical evidence, for the truth!


Are you purposely distorting the truth? The flock of owls is considered RARE but has happened before. Try reading about how thick the ice is off the coast of Alaska this year, no warming there. You really need to study more on your own and stop listening to so called experts that are only interested in skewing the truth, just like you did in your post. All in the name of GW. You mean coming out of an ice age, so yea, it will keep warming until it levels off, and gets cooler again like the 1970's. They told us to paint our roofs black back then, because they said we were going into another ice age. What happened? Al Gore said in the 90's that the sea will rise 20 feet and all the glaciers will melt in 20 years, well...........
Try researching the natural occurring cycles that are seen in millions of years of rock. That is real evidence. We only effect our local environments and living conditions, not the entire earth mechanism. Really? You can't think that is really possible. The earth will shake most of us off before we ever have any real impact. Mass extinctions are also evident in the rocks. We need to just look after ourselves and the things we need to survive and let the earth take care of herself. All we need to do is the responsible thing and that does not involve taxes. If they were really worried about these companies polluting, why not give them ways to create less pollution, not just say "ok, you can pollute all you want, just pay more taxes" that will in no way help clean the air. I am not worried about GW, I am worried about breathing in toxins. Do you really not see that if they were really trying to stop co2 that they would do more than just make some pay a carbon tax and then give that money to countries that don't pollute as much. That can't possibly make sense to you. How does that help lower pollution? Does that make our water cleaner? Once again the so called experts focus on the wrong thing and then get people to follow their rules or they will make sure you are socially shunned for not doing the current PC thing.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Great. You probably just gave ole Gore his next big idea. Careful, don't help them come up with more excuses to tax us. Lol.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


you ddint quite understand. the cycle is renewed every ?thousands of million years?. these ancient forest are beeing renewed into carbon.. we just acelerate the processe by burning them when they still are far from entering the cycle again. and btw, the atmosphere and the living species that exist nowadays are not like species milions of years ago. the atmosphere was quite diferente.. i doubt that we would survive in that days, couse we were born in diferent conditions! thats why species evolve in the first place. couse new conditions arrive and they need to adapt. for example. try setting up an aquarium, with X parameters for an year. then in the next year, change the "microclimate" of the aquarium by adding gases in abdnormal conditions in a short period of time, like in 3 days. i dont think anything inside will survive. do you? species need time do adapt. humans change the face of the earth to fast. life needs time do adapt. thats comon sense. i guess..

another thing.. more water? how come? if we keep cutting trees and heating the planet, how come there will be more water? more salted water? maybe.. but that doesnt help does it? you know that, in a normal forest, 90% of the water is retained in leaves, wood, and roots right? i mean, the renewing process of fresh water, trough plants and soil, ends up in groundwater circle. there will be no more water if we keep building cities by choping down trees. thats why, for example, last year, madeira's (portugal island) had a big derrocate of rocks. couse they choped alot of trees that supported the soil with their roots.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by agentedapixota
 

Don't worry, we will never reach a population that creates a situation where all the trees are gone. You do know that here in the US some companies plant 7 trees for every tree they cut down, in Africa, it's 5. Throughout history when humans were overcrowded, disease flourished, always will.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


lets hope not



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join