It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Global Cooling: be very afraid

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:13 PM

WE stopped using the CFC and the ozone hole didn't grow worse. On top of that the fluoride in those things was made illegal because it was toxic to humans. If was only a matter of time before people were going to get sick and start suing businesses. Although it hurt the ozone layer it was blown up to shield us from the truth. It was in everything back those days. It was easy to get a a moderately toxic dose.
reply to post by rickymouse

Really check out this site... Seems the ozone hole has a cycle too!

fouride was made illegal? Eh? Did you not hear me again? They are putting that acid in my water supply and saying it's good for me! mmmm yeah!

The last part is confusing me, are you on about cfc or flouride?

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by Feiticeira

A flood from where? :lol

Erm you just told me! A storm nanna! lol... I just listed the possibilities of the top of my head, tsunamis come in various strengths you know right? As do storms and hurricanes and tornadoes etc. Sometimes you will have a tsunami and not even know it! The point was it wasn't some gradual rising and was a freak event!

We've had sea defenses in britain for as long as I can remember, in fact they were there before I was a twinkle in my daddies eye! What's your point exactly?

Please stop clutching at straws, you're going way off from your climate change. I can show you major storms dating back hundreds of years! It's natural.

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by Feiticeira

Bhola cyclone, Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1970. Death toll estimated at 150,000 to 550,000. Hooghly River cyclone, India and Bangladesh, 1737. Death toll: 350,000. Haiphong typhoon, Vietnam, 1881. Death toll: 300,000. Coringa cyclone, India, 1839. Death toll: 300,000. Backerganj cyclone, Bangladesh, 1584. Death toll: 200,000. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh, 1876. Death toll: 200,000. Chittagong cyclone, Bangladesh, 1897. Death toll: 175,000. Super Typhoon Nina, China, 1975. Death toll: 171,000. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh, 1991. Death toll: 140,000. Great Bombay Cyclone, India (from the Arabian Sea), 1882. Death toll: 100,000.

A quick search found me this...

So you see we have always had devastating storms! Why would you show that pathetic one to prove your climate change?

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by ollncasino

Sounds like he needs funding
Fear is a good way to get it. The Bogey man cometh, therefore give me a generous grant. Scientists are now very adept politicians and experts at spin.

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:56 PM

Originally posted by pikestaff

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ollncasino

Oh yay, another thread to "de-bunk" global warming.

Give it up, deniers/debunkers.

While you forecast doom and gloom, others are looking for solutions to help humanity adapt.

According to Climate depot, sea ice at the north pole is on the increase, summer and winter, what does that mean?

Here's what it may mean...

Arctic Sea-Ice Loss Didn't Happen by Chance

When scientists try to attribute some observed climatic change to a specific forcing, they usually use complex climate models. The scientists at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), however, decided on a different strategy as they set out to identify the main driver for the observed sea-ice loss in the Arctic. Dirk Notz, lead author of the study that was now published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, explains why: "Sea ice is so thin that it reacts very sensitive to the large natural fluctuations of weather and climate that prevail in the Arctic. Because these fluctuations are inherently chaotic, their specific timing cannot be reproduced by standard climate models. Such models therefore aren't necessarily the best tool to examine if natural fluctuations did cause the observed sea-ice loss."

The scientists instead used a historical record that described the natural variations of sea-ice extent between the early 1950s and late 1970s. These natural fluctuations were then compared to the magnitude of fluctuations of the Arctic sea-ice cover as measured from satellites since the late 1970s. From such comparison, the scientists found only a minute chance that the recently observed extreme sea-ice minima simply happened by chance -- and they could exclude self acceleration as the main driver for the observed sea-ice retreat. "Whenever we had a strong sea-ice loss from one year to the next, the ice cover always recovered somewhat in the following year," explains Dirk Notz. This would not be the case if the sea-ice retreat were indeed self-accelerating.

Jochem Marotzke, Director at MPI-M and co-author of the study, describes what the scientists did next: "Having excluded natural fluctuations and self acceleration as the main driver for the sea-ice retreat, it was clear to us that some external driver was responsible for the observed sea-ice decline. We therefore set out to find an external driver that showed a physically plausible relationship with the observed sea-ice retreat." The scientists examined, for example, the strength of solar radiation. "Here, a physically plausible link to the observed sea-ice retreat can only be established if solar radiation had increased in recent years." However, solar radiation has slightly decreased in the past decades. Its fluctuations are therefore very unlikely to be the main driver of the observed sea ice loss. The scientists could not find a plausible link to changes in prevailing wind patterns, volcanic eruptions, oceanic heat transport, or cosmic rays, either

"In the end, only the increase in greenhouse gas concentration showed a physically plausible link with the observed sea-ice retreat. We expect a decreasing sea-ice cover for increasing greenhouse gas concentration, which is exactly what is observed," Notz explains. The physical link between greenhouse gas concentration and sea ice is quite straightforward, he adds: "Greenhouse gases increase the downwelling thermal radiation. This radiation, in turn, is the major player in the heat budget of Arctic sea ice."

oops, almost forgot the part that directly answers your question...

In the Antarctic, the situation is different. Here, the sea-ice cover is slightly increasing. This increase is clearly incompatible with greenhouse gas concentration being the main driver for the sea-ice evolution down South. The major reason for this discrepancy lies in the different land-mass distributions, the scientists find. In the Arctic Ocean, the ice is virtually locked by the surrounding land masses, and its extent is primarily governed by its melting and freezing. Therefore, greenhouse gases play such an important role up in the high North. In the Antarctic, by contrast, the sea ice is free to drift around in the open Southern Ocean. Hence, the ice extent there is primarily governed by the prevailing wind patterns. "Our results show that greenhouse gas concentration is currently not a major driver for sea-ice extent in the Southern Ocean, where winds and currents clearly are more important," explains Marotzke. "In the land-locked Arctic Ocean, however, greenhouse gas concentration appears to play the dominating role for the observed sea-ice evolution."

edit on 2-5-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional statement

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:59 AM
The sea rise level as been small, but it is enough to bring severe damage to coastal areas when there is a storm or even extremly high tides.

A US exemple:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:22 AM
reply to post by mee30

You are a bit off, the impact we have is greater than all super vulcanos active during human history. The last real large eruption of a super volcano was 26,500 years ago.

To check for our capability to change the environment one must not look beyond the quantity of food, water, oil or coal that is consumed annually, the problem is not only grave but it is accelerating exponentially and when it crashes it will be abrupt and very painful.

The term climate change is not stupid, it takes into account that climate changes normally and so in that context it signifies that climate is changing abnormally. If you were old enough that would be pretty obvious to you a year now is not as a year was 20 years ago in relation to weather and seasons.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by mee30

That sort of fluoride was removed from the market. Some sorts of fluoride are not bad for us and it does induce tranquility. Drink some tea to see the effects it has on calmity. Fluoride is not put into water for our teeth. I understand that without fluoride there is civil unrest and forcing everyone to drink coffee and tea or cilantro is never going to work. The problem is that the calm people who are using organic fluorides are getting overdosed from it in the water. Fluoride has no effect on a small percentage of people, those who have ancestors that lived in high fluoride areas have acquired genetic switches to protect them. I'm not afraid of fluoride, I now know it's properties and antidotes.

The aspect of us entering a global cooling time now has no evidence to support it's concept. People misinterpret evidence all the time, I've seen it many times over the years. With the changes we've made I don't know if the natural correction can occur. We're way over the tipping point that history tells us about. No predictions are possible anymore because there is no evidence to compare it to. This new situation is manmade, I have no doubt in my mind. It's not earths natural emissions that are screw it up, it's the unnatural stuff that tips the scale. The crap they add to fuel, the unnatural imbalance of chemicals in the atmosphere.

There are natural disasters and natural cycles of climate but we have exceeded historic points. We don't need evidence to see what we are doing to the earth, we just need eyes. If I had my choice I would have everyone who hid their deceit and deception behind the words "prove it, where's your evidence" destroyed when it came to hurting our Ecosystem. I don't mind "I didn't know" as long as it isn't used more than a few times for minor things. I tell you, the people of the world ought to be glad that I am not in charge, I'd reduce the population very quickly by eliminating the greedy. I'd knock it in half again getting rid of those who cause destruction of nature without need. I guess the Native Americans would be a majority in this country again
The Indians tried to warn us this was coming long ago.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by ollncasino

Meh...this is not a new theory.

Do some homework on "The Little Ice Age" that lasted roughly 4 to 5 hundred years and ended in the early 1800's. During that time, the peak of "The Little Ice Age" coincided with what is called "The Maunder Minimum" which is when the sun enters a period of unusually low activity. (There was also a volcanic eruption in there to help it along).

The Little Ice Age is a pretty fascinating subject. It helped to defeat Napoleon in Russia, helped the crops fail in France, leading to the French Revolution...and in late 18th to early 19th century, there was what is called "the year without a summer" when heavy snows fell in New England in July and August.

Nifty stuff...but not new theory...

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by Damrod

The Vikings policy of burning forests to clear land for raising hogs didn't help things. They caused mass deforestation of regions causing winter storms to drift snow into big piles. Some of these areas forests never grew back. The mines deforesting here in the U.P. to feed the smelters in the 1800s caused major snowstorms to blow over the area almost making it inhabitable in the winter and super hot in the summer. People don't look at history enough. They don't respect what our ancestors learned. We have to relearn things the hard way.

It seems that history rarely records our mistakes because people don't want others to see their faults. Societies bury their mistakes along with the bodies of those who die because of them..
edit on 3-5-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by Feiticeira

I'm not asking for your fantasy I'm asking for your scientific facts! So far you have given me an outdated website, some 6 years old! Other than that only feelings! You say there has been a rise, HOW MUCH? If you don't know just say so!

And why would you then link me to a us video? Strange... I've already given you evidence of huge floods caused by storms throughout our history! Even hundreds of years ago! What was the excuse for these then? Did the sea rise back then too?

Come on chap give me something! Anything!

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:52 AM
The video was not about a storm.
That means you didn't even bother to watch it.

As for other sources, the problem is that I have to limit my search online to english.
I can also understand portuguese, spanish, italian and french. Can I search in those languages?

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by Panic2k11

So you're saying that humans were not around 26,000 years ago? And how about all the other large eruptions? There was 1 in 2010 that kicked up 344×106 kg of CO2 emissions per day! Per day! We are nothing compared to these kinds of forces!

I'm 30 and I remember the weather very well from 20 years ago, nothing has changed apart from your perception due to all the fear mongering!

From your user name I can see that you buy into fear mongering big time! Panic2k11? Well we're in 2012 now so how did the panicking about 2011 work out for you?

I'm sorry but I am not buying into the fear! Try as you might.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by Feiticeira

No I didn't watch it as I was asking about your country! You do not live in the us do you? You still have not answered my questions! So I take it that you do not know how much if any your seas have risen. So why make unsubstantiated claims? I thought you were all about science?

Sure you can, I can use google translate.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by rickymouse

Really? Well my friend (who didn't believe me at first) was working security on a film set near a reservoir and saw the tanker containing the acid rolling in! He asked the driver if that was for the water and he yes! He was shocked and said is the legal? The driver said apparently so! You seem delusional about the fluoride, the effects and dangers have been well documented!

I have looked into it all a lot and even attended my local council regarding it! They posed it as being good for your teeth. All the pro fluoride stuff says the same.

I do not drink the tap water and I do not need calming down! lol.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by mee30

You are a bit off, the impact we have is greater than all super vulcanos active during human history.

And you have the science to prove it

Man-made global warming started with ancient hunters AGU Release No. 10–15 30 June 2010 For Immediate Release WASHINGTON—Even before the dawn of agriculture, people may have caused the planet to warm up, a new study suggests. Mammoths used to roam modern-day Russia and North America, but are now extinct—and there's evidence that around 15,000 years ago, early hunters had a hand in wiping them out. A new study, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), argues that this die-off had the side effect of heating up the planet. “A lot of people still think that people are unable to affect the climate even now, even when there are more than 6 billion people,” says the lead author of the study, Chris Doughty of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California. The new results, however, “show that even when we had populations orders of magnitude smaller than we do now, we still had a big impact.” In the new study, Doughty, Adam Wolf, and Chris Field—all at Carnegie Institution for Science—propose a scenario to explain how hunters could have triggered global warming. First, mammoth populations began to drop—both because of natural climate change as the planet emerged from the last ice age, and because of human hunting. Normally, mammoths would have grazed down any birch that grew, so the area stayed a grassland. But if the mammoths vanished, the birch could spread. In the cold of the far north, these trees would be dwarfs, only about 2 meters (6 feet) tall. Nonetheless, they would dominate the grasses. The trees would change the color of the landscape, making it much darker so it would absorb more of the Sun's heat, in turn heating up the air. This process would have added to natural climate change, making it harder for mammoths to cope, and helping the birch spread further. To test how big of an effect this would have on climate, Field's team looked at ancient records of pollen, preserved in lake sediments from Alaska, Siberia, and the Yukon Territory, built up over thousands of years. They looked at pollen from birch trees (the genus Betula), since this is “a pioneer species that can rapidly colonize open ground following disturbance,” the study says. The researchers found that around 15,000 years ago—the same time that mammoth populations dropped, and that hunters arrived in the area—the amount of birch pollen started to rise quickly. To estimate how much additional area the birch might have covered, they started with the way modern-day elephants affect their environment by eating plants and uprooting trees. If mammoths had effects on vegetation similar to those of modern elephants , then the fall of mammoths would have allowed birch trees to spread over several centuries, expanding from very few trees to covering about one-quarter of Siberia and Beringia—the land bridge between Asia and Alaska. In those places where there was dense vegetation to start with and where mammoths had lived, the main reason for the spread of birch trees was the demise of mammoths, the model suggests. Another study, published last year, shows that “the mammoths went extinct, and that was followed by a drastic change in the vegetation,” rather than the other way around, Doughty says. “With the extinction of this keystone species, it would have some impact on the ecology and vegetation—and vegetation has a large impact on climate.” Doughty and colleagues then used a climate simulation to estimate that this spread of birch trees would have warmed the whole planet more than 0.1 degrees Celsius (0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) over the course of several centuries. (In comparison, the planet has warmed about six times more during the past 150 years, largely because of people's greenhouse gas emissions.)

Only some portion—about one-quarter—of the spread of the birch trees would have been due to the mammoth extinctions, the researchers estimate. Natural climate change would have been responsible for the rest of the expansion of birch trees. Nonetheless, this suggests that when hunters helped finish off the mammoth, they could have caused some global warming. In Siberia, Doughty says, “about 0.2 degrees C (0.36 degrees F) of regional warming is the part that is likely due to humans.” Earlier research indicated that prehistoric farmers changed the climate by slashing and burning forests starting about 8,000 years ago, and when they introduced rice paddy farming about 5,000 years ago.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:09 AM

This would suggest that the start of the so-called “Anthropocene”—a term used by some scientists to refer to the geological age when mankind began shaping the entire planet—should be dated to several thousand years ago. However, Field and colleagues argue, the evidence of an even earlier man-made global climate impact suggests the Anthropocene could have started much earlier. Their results, they write, “suggest the human influence on climate began even earlier than previously believed, and that the onset of the Anthropocene should be extended back many thousands of years.” This work was funded by the Carnegie Institution for Science and NASA.

Authors: Christopher E. Doughty, Adam Wolf, and Christopher B. Field, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, USA

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by mee30

I will give you some portuguese link: even if you are going to ignore them, like the last one.

Meanwhile you can start with this: I please do not start crying: "Lier"

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by ollncasino

The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface. The ocean plays a major role in regulating the weather and climate of the planet. These materials will help you understand the factors that impact the Earth's weather and climate, and how changes in temperature or air circulation are part of complex, long-term cycles. Understanding the influence of ocean conditions on the Earth’s climate and monitoring changes in ocean conditions are key to predicting climate change.

This tutorial explores global weather and climate patterns, focusing on why different conditions exist in specific areas. The Earth’s weather patterns, which consist of different conditions of temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind, air pressure, etc., result in various climate zones across the globe. Weather and climate are the result of the transfer of energy from the sun at and near the surface of the Earth. Solar radiation heats land masses, the ocean, and air differently, resulting in the constant transfer of energy across the globe. Transfer of thermal energy at the boundaries between the atmosphere, land masses, and the ocean are influenced by dynamic processes such as cloud cover, and relatively static conditions such as the position of mountain ranges and the ocean. This transfer of thermal energy results in layers of different temperatures and densities in both the ocean and atmosphere. The action of gravitational force on regions of different density causes these layers to rise or fall, forming convection currents (cells). This circulation, influenced by the rotation of the Earth, produces winds and ocean currents.

Ocean currents are water movement and circulation patterns that influence climate zones and weather patterns around the world. The directions these currents take can be impacted by weather, movements of celestial bodies and even by the actions of man. There are two basic types of ocean currents, and each is influenced by a variety of different factors. Together, these currents make up the ocean patterns and flow that control water bodies across the planet.

Loop Current

A parent to the Florida Current, the Loop Current is a warm ocean current in the Gulf of Mexico that flows northward between Cuba and the Yucatán peninsula, moves north into the Gulf of Mexico, loops east and south before exiting to the east through the Florida Straits and joining the Gulf Stream.

A related feature is an area of warm water with an "eddy" or "Loop Current ring" that separates from the Loop Current, somewhat randomly. These rings then drift to the west at speeds of about 5 cm/s (0.18 km/h or 0.11 mph) and bump into the coast of Texas or Mexico.

Factual satellite images in the past several weeks are showing that the Gulf Loop Current is broken and may cease to function entirely! This will result in massive climate change and possibly an ice age for Europe! Major trouble brewing?? More freakish weather on its way??

Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.[1] The subject may use:


edit on 5/3/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by Feiticeira

Sure you can, I can use google translate.

Good luck with google

But I think this site because it has an english version... it should be the only site you will be able to understand
- And it's the site that answers some of your questions about the effects of climate changes in Portugal

The Portuguese version:

The english version

This other sites are in Portuguese
(I will be funny to find out what comes out of google translate)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in