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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

New Scientific Report Destroys Global Warming!

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:04 AM
Cool how the OP decided to just ignore his own thread altogether, rather than admitting that he was entirely wrong about his assertions. Same with those who idiotically chimed in about it without bothering to read the article to see that his interpretation wasn't even remotely accurate.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:45 AM

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by rwfresh

What would you consider more important, wars that affect groups of people around the globe or a disaster that kills most of the people on the globe?

Sorry, are we assuming now that science can predict when most of the people on the globe will be killed by global warming?

Actually yes their are documents that state that once global temperatures rise to a certain level human life will not be sustainable.

What temperature would that be? How fast is the temperature rising and how much of an impact on the temperature would eliminating all human produced CO2 have? Would be good to know.

In the meantime what are we doing to prevent an earthquake from causing nuclear meltdown of 10 of the 104 nuclear reactors in the USA which would kill off mankind? What have we done to prevent a solar flare from initiating nuclear meltdown on all 104 reactors?

What is being done to stop the use of depleted uranium? How much time do we have until the food chain is completely wiped out by unsustainable farming practices?

Go and try and get me concerned about the temperature possibly rising in the future. try. please. And while you are at it.. what is your solution again?

Who cares?

Depleted uranium? Are you a whack job? Sorry I used to work with it and you can’t change my mind on it.

Nuclear reactors? You are more worried about that than a worldwide extinction. Wow your priorities are way off.

Anyway here is a link I am still waiting for yours.Arctic News
Google is your friend
edit on 5-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

You are seriously deluded. You are an automaton. Sorry. The DU explains a lot. Honestly you've got a lot more to worry about than the temperature and the Carbon Armageddon.

It is amazing how much you have to say on the matter and how little you contribute.

I answered your question and provided the article but YOU HAVE NOT OFFERED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO YOUR CLAIMS. If you will not provide any evidence to support your statements then I will just have to regard any and everything you have to say as blowing hot air. (Pun intended)

To be clear I only care to discuss issues dealing with global warming and climate change I do not care about all the side issue distractions you keep bringing up. DU, nuclear reactors, war, carbon credits, chemicals being dumped, your overwhelming psychiatric bill, or any other issues you can’t seem to find the correct thread for. I just don’t care. If you cannot stay on topic do not expect a reply in any other form than ridicule.

edit on 6-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: add and spellcheck

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:59 AM

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Grimpachi

Very good article, I hadn't realized that the methane issue was so critical. Everyone needs to stop farting. That 2050 matches my estimate of extinction but I used all aspects of pollution. I'm pretty sure it is passed the point of no return already. This methane thing sounds dangerous, it sounds like they could possibly use HAARP to help fix it partially. Just fixing the methane problem only gives us ten more years here on earth. I can't believe people can't see what we have done to this planet.

At the bottom of the article they have stated what needs to happen to avert catastrophe but I just do not see it happening there are still so many people that just refuse to accept scientific findings as proof and are ignoring what is right in front of them. We may have reached the tipping point already as you suggested but the issue scares people so much they are acting as if it doesn’t exist.

My personal belief is that the holly rollers are looking at this as there rapture or something.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

Originally posted by munkey66

The thin wisps of condensation that trail jet airliners have a significant influence on the climate, according to scientists who studied U.S. skies during a rare interruption in national air traffic after the September 11 terrorist attacks. During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.
What would happen to the planet if all aircraft was grounded?

A slow deliberate approach must be taken, rather than a knee jerk

That small variation in temperature means nothing at all, especially at the local level. I mean clearly the world would never stop air travel, but if something was discovered that could power airplanes that does not release the same byproducts as jet fuel and that did not leave contrails how it was phased in would be irrelevant. If it happened today or decade from now the decrease would be the same. The worldwide impact would be the same. But a 1.1 variation in a small segment of the planet is insignificant.

After reading the article the findings were inconclusive and they admitted that, however it is an aspect that does warrant further studies. It was an astute observation that does seem to indicate that at the very least human interaction does influence weather. There are many factors to be looked at but it does grab your attention especially for that time of year.

No, this does not really mean anything or warrant any further study. We already know we can affect weather, there is really nothing else to research. I mean we know we can alter the speed of hurricanes, we know that cities are usually hotter, etc. This really isn't adding anything to the conversation about global warming. The reason I say that is because if we removed airplanes from the sky tomorrow the small amount of variation you would see from place to place, probably would not show up when the global temperature is calculated. Thats what is important here, if the global temperature gets to high we/re screwed. Weather is for the most part negligible.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by acmpnsfal

The very article you posted sys this:

While the temperature range is significant, whether the jet clouds have a net effect on global warming remains unknown.

"And contrails are much more prevalent when the sun is out," he said. "When this is factored in, there is a possibility that they offset global warming, and this is what we are trying to determine now."

The researchers plan more studies to tackle that question, but they said they expect to rely on circumstantial evidence only.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:21 AM
reply to post by wittgenstein

Yes Global warming is cyclical. Ever hear of the Little Ice Age? It was before the Industrial Age and after the Medieval warm period. Even wikipedia says it was due to cyclical lows in solar radiation. Of course wiki is generally liberally slanted so they also claim it was partially due to lower population.
The IPCC would still be hard pressed as to why the earth was hotter and sulphurous when the dinos roamed without man.
edit on 6-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

You have given me a lot of reading to do it will take me some time to complete it however the peer review on he article FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS and I quote.

It has been proved that, in the terminology of H’s argument, the “back radiation” is a flow of heat-t and is not a flow of heat-t. On the basis of this contradition H’s argument logically fails, from its violation of the law of non-contradiction


peer review
Just in case that link does not work I posted it below in text.


It will take me some time to look through all this information but I will post as I read through it however some of the information you posted I do not have the background for and will not be able to discern the meaning of all of it.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:02 AM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I love wiki but I dont see anywhere in that article where it applies to global warming of present day. I think most scientists have agreed that a volcanic eruption was the main cause however these were listed.

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population. Lower CO2 atmospheric concentrations found in Antarctic ice cores may have resulted from the colder global climate.

Here is some light reading for you.Extinction in our lifetime

It is probably the scariest article I have ever read and I only wish it was false.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:08 AM
I made 2 posts with opposing views.
One agreed with man made global warming and the other said that the green movement has an agenda.

I was able to make 2 posts with opposing ideas and yet it was missed, this proves to me that this is still just all smoke and mirrors and people just want to argue.

The whole debate should not be about who is right and who is wrong, but rather both sides agree that something needs to be done to protect resources and the environment, the main focal point in which is ignored is once again the carbon tax/ trading scheme. this is by far the most important and dangerous feature of the whole climate change debate.
get your heads around the idea that carbon will become a commodity, as a commodity it has value, we all produce Co2 and that will cost us all, currently it is big polluters, next comes smaller industry and eventually it will be households being accountable for their emissions.
people who sell you the power, want to make sure you need their power and cannot live without their power, does anyone here honestly think that they are going to let green energy make you free?

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by munkey66

I do not really care about the carbon tax it is not something I care to debate I am simply here to discern the facts about global warming. Tax or no tax is not something I concern myself with when what I am concerned about is will we be able to survive. That is the main question in my eyes and when I see people post threads that claim that Global warming has been disproved it grabs my attention. As we have already seen the OP was full of s%#t and his thread has been moved to diss info section but there are others that are still debating its legitimacy when the article he was citing proves him wrong.

The carbon tax is an issue that I find to be better for a political discussion not one for science.

If your comments were about the carbon tax or a off subject I probably glazed over it if you posted a article as supporting evidence to a position you took I probably read it otherwise I skim trough posts looking for relevant information according to the discussion of actual climate change I am not looking for people that make contradicting arguments with themselves. Hope you understand that. Maybe other people do but not myself.

I believe in global warming and I believe the green movement has an agenda. I hope the green movement has an agenda at least because without one there are no goals for the future. I hope the agenda is to slow global warming and have us switch to clean renewable energy as long as that is the main goal I care not.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: add and spellcheck

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:46 AM
reply to post by Grimpachi

Lol, I did not post that article. But anyway, these contrails are not really worth losing sleep over and to bring them up in the discussion of global warming is just ridiculous. If they want to study them to find out if they heat or cool the atmosphere fine. BUT, even if it was discovered that contrails were either heating or cooling the planet, the intervention would be extremely easy, lol. If we wanted to keep them, fine. If not, no problem. Because:

They have discovered that aviation contrails play a huge role in the impact on the climate and an even greater impact than that created by the CO2 emissions produced. While the CO2 emissions from airplanes account for around three percent of the annual CO2 emissions from all fossil fuels and change the radiation by 28 milliwatts per square meter, the aviation contrails are responsible for a change of around 31 milliwatts per square meter. The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road.



Q) How long do contrails last? A) Anywhere from less than a second, up to several hours. If depends on the atmospheric conditions at the altitude the plane is flying. It’s unrelated to the weather on the ground.


These contrails, if they are doing anything, have no lasting affect on anything. They can be dealt with pretty much overnight. Unlike co2 which will stick around for years.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:06 AM
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

In the abstract to their article, H state that Gerlich and Tscheushchner (hereafter collectively referenced by “GT”) “…claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.” This statement is prone to being misunderstood for, as GT demonstrate in their 2009 article, the literature describes many such effects. In their article, GT claim to have falsified all such effects that had been described at the time of publication of this article.

As far as raw Vostok ice core data from 400,000 years ago and more raw Vostok ice core data from 400,000 years ago maybe you can help me read this raw data becuse it is all greek to me.

So for the paper Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) it seems it has been

Summary of Part 3: Roy Spencer posits that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is linked to chaotic variations in global cloud cover over multi-decadal timescales, and thus has been the major driver of climate change over the 20th century. To test this hypothesis, he fit the output of a simple climate model, driven by the PDO, to temperature anomaly data for the 20th century. He found he could obtain a reasonable fit, but to do so he had to use five (he says four) adjustable parameters. The values he obtained for these parameters fit well with his overall hypothesis, but in fact, other values that are both more physically plausible and go against his hypothesis would give equally good results. Spencer only reported the values that agreed with his hypothesis, however. Roy Spencer has established a clear track record of throwing out acutely insufficient evidence for his ideas, and then complaining that his colleagues are intellectually lazy and biased when they are not immediately convinced.

I am reading and looking up the link you provided Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003 but this is not a scientific paper and it is actually piecework of papers on a website I will research it and get back to you. Thanks.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:16 AM
reply to post by acmpnsfal

I think it is worth looking into fr scientific reason but I tend to lean tword they do more harm than good. I only try to educate myself as much as possible in these matters but the more I do the less hope I have. I think it may be a form of It is sad people refuse to see the truth but I think I would be much happier if I was able to deny the facts. Oh well at least I will one day be able to say told you so to these people but I will be much happier if they could.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:24 AM
“What i am asserting is you are misunderstanding their findings because you yourself have not read the information. Which is clear by the statements you are making.”

Did you even read the statements? Remember, you said, no scientific organization said that humans have caused global warming. Since EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and international reputation has confirmed that humans have significantly contributed to global warming , for this post, I have only included a few, because if I included them all this post would be 30 pages long!!!

Just a small sample

“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.”

“There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

“As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.”

“There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.”

In what way are those statements not clear to you?

edit on 6-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:38 AM
I forgot,

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science , National Academy of Sciences of the United States, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society... are all part of the conspiracy!!!

“Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[103] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.”

edit on 6-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by Grimpachi

well feel free to discuss science.
As I already pointed out, you probably skimmed past it though, was that both sides of the science are owned by the same people, it does not matter who is wrong or right, you are going to get screwed by a carbon trading scheme, but you would prefer the be right.

The problem is people argue black and blue and have to be right and miss the whole agenda, that is how society is programmed, divide and conquer.
That is why we are losing

But carry on being part of the machine, a few people may have taken notice and see what this whole farce is really about

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:42 AM
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

After reading many of the articles you provided besides the climate gate e mails wich have been debunked and were found to be nothing I read many peer reviews of the articles and so far have not found one that backs there conclusions. Some links were broken and much of it is just raw data. You said they were peer reviewed but you left out they were not peer supported so what gives?

The only article that I could not find a peer review was a summary of other articles and essentialy not a scientific study. I would love to think global warming is a hoax and we do not affect it but so far you have not supplied peer reviewed and supported evidence.

I am going to take a nap now.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:55 AM

Science can be confusing, especially to global warming deniers. Scientists typically, (because of a tradition of skepticism few scientists say 100% certainty) say things like “strong certainty”. The site I gave above shows how the way a scientist thinks can be confusing to the lay public (an example of what “lay public” means It is interesting that both the American Meteorological Society

(“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.”
And that in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States,
“97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) ,...)

issued strong statements. Many more have also, but as I said in a previous post there are too many to include!

edit on 6-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:00 AM
reply to post by munkey66

As far as I am concerned facts are facts and as long as people deny what is right in front of them this planet is doomed because it will take a general consensus to make the drastic changes that will need to be made.

If what you are implying is that somehow TPTB or whoever is purposely steering us to destruction by dividing us and this is some great conspiracy I am not buying it. The only thing that is steering us as a species of a cliff is greed and sheer stupidity. The only thing I can do ATM is educate those that are deluded with science and facts and hope they wake up in time. What is the point in arguing over carbon tax if no one will be around to pay it?

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:02 AM
reply to post by wittgenstein

Just wondering who are you talking to your posts are not directed to anyone?

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in