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.


Arctic Ice Rotten to the Core

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 02:57 PM
The above are just some of the many peer-reviewed research papers that demonstrate the fact that "today is not warmer, and has not warmed faster than ever before"...

Some other members and myself have also demonstrated, several times if I might add, that Climate Change being blamed on humans is being used as an excuse to implement a One World Government derived from corporate governance, as UN documents reveal.

The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum


Francesca Beausang


This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

The above paper is from 1991 from the UN (UNESCO is a branch of the UN in case you didn't know). It, and the meetings these globalists have been having call for a GLOBAL SOCIALIST/FASCIST GOVERNMENT derived from CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...

edit on 24-9-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Some other members and myself have also demonstrated, several times if I might add, that Climate Change being blamed on humans is being used as an excuse to implement a One World Government derived from corporate governance, as UN documents reveal.

Is that why the US govt in particular has for so long rejected the idea that humans can have any effect on the climate?

Of course, those of certain religious persuasions have been adamant about this for a very long time. And they have a lot or money and influence.

The 'war' between science and religion goes back to before Gallileo's time. It continues today.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Of course, those of certain religious persuasions have been adamant about this for a very long time. And they have a lot or money and influence.

The 'war' between science and religion goes back to before Gallileo's time. It continues today.

What I presented is REAL SCIENCE, it has NOTHING to do with religion, but I see what sort of "evidence" people like you like to present...

Nice try...
edit on 24-9-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Naw, you just like to slew out accusations and assumptions for no good reason.

I see your hundreds of studies, and raise you thousands which say the opposite

It really is pointless trying to debate this, though. Those who care to see what's going on will hopefully be wise enough to prepare as they see fit.

As for you? See my sig. That's my advice. Learn to swim.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
A good piece written by my friend John Mason (a geologist, for what it's worth)

Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by littled16

There is nothing natural about this warming cycle. The historical record shows us this has never happened before so rapidly.

We are about to go on one crazy ride.

The tempuratures on Mars and Venus have also increased to a similar extent as they have on Earth, this is the natural part of the cycle; the galaxy astrography.

The solar system travels around the center of its galaxy just as the Earth travels around its central star (Sol). What makes this both natural and unprecedented is the area of space our system has moved into. It has more gases (density) then the past region our system was traveling through, this increase in space density has caused more friction amounst the molecules, resulting in more heat system wide.

With this understanding you can see that this temperature increase is both natural and unseen in history at the same time. Our star system does not sit here in a stable astrography, with space conditions remaining identical throughout time. We are in a new space region and its effects cannot be found in the annals of our geolithic record.

Your last sentance is 100% perfect!

God Bless,

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:48 PM
I say bring on the melt. Things will change, Earth's climate is constantly changing. Organisms will adapt, evolve, and survive including humans.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by ElohimJD

The tempuratures on Mars and Venus have also increased to a similar extent as they have on Earth

They have?
Do you have a source for that?

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:19 PM
At this moment in time in the great grand scheme of things whether or not we as a species continue or go extinct is meaningless to all save our own collective fragile ego. If we continue we will affect all that lies ahead. If we go the way of the DoDo all else will go forward without us and in time the memory of Humankind will have been relegated to the cosmic dust bin.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by moniesisfun

Naw, you just like to slew out accusations and assumptions for no good reason.

I see your hundreds of studies, and raise you thousands which say the opposite


Thousands that say the opposite? really? go ahead and try. I dare you.

Whose work are you going to present? The IPCC which has been caught lying, and whose scientists behind the lie that is manmade Climate Change have had to apologize and spill the beans about their lies?...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date wasgrey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

Whose work are you going to present? Mann's? The hypocrite who create the farse that is the Hockey Stick graph and which has been repudiated and it's not even used any more even by the IPCC?...

What about "" where Mann, and some other LIARS are directors of and who are linked to Al Gore, and whose registrant organization is none other than Environmental Media Services?...

EMS's founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House.

Please go ahead and tell me whose work are you going to present?... The University of East Anglia which had "deleted all their climate data" claming to get more space when in fact this act made possible that no one could check to see if their numbers were correct?...

Whose work huh? Jones, et al who have been caught red handed in their lies, and Jones himself contemplated suicide because he was caught in the lies?...

The scientist at the center of the "Climate-gate" e-mail scandal has revealed that he was so traumatized by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.

Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself "several times."

He acknowledged similarities to Dr. David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had "sexed up" evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

In e-mails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change.

Go ahead... are you talking about the "2,500 climate experts from the IPCC" which in fact over 2,400 are only policymakers who had made obscure papers for their respective governments, for example on motorcycle safety, and whichs those governemnts were using as leverage to get what they want from this farce?...

Only a few of those "2,500 experts", their numbers around 56, are real experts with degrees in Climate Science and most which disagree with the claim that mankind is to blame... and most of them are the very scientists that the left LOVE to bash for not believing in anthropogenic global warming...

One example of those REAL Climate Change scientists from the IPCC who have been trying to inform the ignorant masses to the truth behind Climate Change is Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville...

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.


You don't have ANYTHING but deceipt, exagerations and lies, and that's the truth...

edit on 24-9-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: errors and to add links.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:31 PM
Let me show you the statements from some of the other REAL Climate scientists from the IPCC, and some of the other scientists who have been trying to warn ignorant people like yourself but you want to turn a blind eye to them "because you have a feeling that they are wrong"...

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

People need to be reminded of the facts, and the truth so they won't fall anymore for "the need of a one World Government, or the need for the world to unite to combat Climate Change"......

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by ElohimJD

You are right about the solar system heading into a gas and dust cloud. Temperatures could be extreme, but there is no reason for us to think it will influence the planets. The atmosphere is the most important factor.

Without it it would be 400 degrees Celsius in the sun and freezing out of the suns reach.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Thank you, I did not see they were only talking about the surface.

I can no longer use the links I posted, and yours I can't fully read it in. Could you provide me with a source that still shows the full article ?

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:52 PM
Oh and btw, let's not forget the scientists who have had to leave the IPCC, and other governmetn jobs all around the world because they would not jump into the anthropogenic global warming bandwagon... Such as...

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

Chris Landsea, chief scientist at the National Hurricane Center, resigned from the IPCC in 2005. He objected to the poor science and politics behind the IPCC hurricane claims.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberths role as the IPCCs Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

But you go ahead and keep believing in the fairy tale/LIE that is anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change for all I care.

I have even presented direct proof to you from the UN that what they want is to use ignorant people like yourself to push for their global agenda, and you and others like you want to claim I am basing my statements on religion?...

edit on 24-9-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

You are right about the solar system heading into a gas and dust cloud. Temperatures could be extreme, but there is no reason for us to think it will influence the planets. The atmosphere is the most important factor.

Without it it would be 400 degrees Celsius in the sun and freezing out of the suns reach.

Actually there are lots of reasons for us to think this will, and has been affecting the entire Solar System, including our Sun.

Back around in 2004, and throughout the years I have presented these research papers which show that even back in the 1970s at least some scientists knew that our Solar System was approaching a nearby interstellar cloud which could have some possible effects on the global climate.

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud

Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.

Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600.

Observations indicating a hydrogen density gradient in the vicinity of the solar system are reviewed, particularly observations of an anisotropy in the far-UV flux around 950 A from the brightest and closest O and B stars as well as a variation in the local D/H ratio along the lines of sight to Alpha Cen and Alpha Aur. Possible mechanisms that may strongly affect the observed D/H ratio on a very small scale are considered, selected radiation pressure is proposed as the most likely mechanism for deuterium separation, and it is shown that this mechanism would be effective only if the density gradient of the nearby interstellar medium has remained stable for at least about 10 million years. This time scale is taken to imply the existence of a nearby (less than 2 pc distant) interstellar cloud. Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.


At first the research suggested that it would take us from 10,000-50,000 years to reach this cloud, but recent reearch says we will be well within the cloud within the next 100 years.

I have also posted evidence that we have been already experiencing effects from small sections of this cloud which we have been encountering for many years.

Ribbon at Edge of Our Solar System: Will the Sun Enter a Million-Degree Cloud of Interstellar Gas?
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2010) — Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon?

Scientists from the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Southwest Research Institute, and Boston University suggest that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect coming up because of the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.

The Sun traveling through the Galaxy happens to cross at the present time a blob of gas about ten light-years across, with a temperature of 6-7 thousand degrees kelvin. This so-called Local Interstellar Cloud is immersed in a much larger expanse of a million-degree hot gas, named the Local Bubble. The energetic neutral atoms (ENA) are generated by charge exchange at the interface between the two gaseous media. ENA can be observed provided the Sun is close enough to the interface. The apparent Ribbon of ENA discovered by the IBEX satellite can be explained by a geometric effect: one observes many more ENA by looking along a line-of-sight almost tangent to the interface than by looking in the perpendicular direction. (Credit: SRC/Tentaris,ACh/Maciej Frolow)

Read this from 1996 when they thought it was farther away.

Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter
Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter–gas and dust–that could have substantial implications for our solar systems interplanetary environment, according to University of Chicago astrophysicist Priscilla Frisch. The good news is that it probably won’t happen for 50,000 years. Frisch presented the results of her research Monday, June 10, at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Madison, Wisc.

Frisch has been investigating the interstellar gas in the local neighborhood of our solar system, which is called the Local Interstellar Medium (LISM). This interstellar gas is within 100 light years of the Sun. The Sun has a trajectory through space, and for most of the last five million years, said Frisch, it has been moving through a region of space between the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy that is almost devoid of matter. Only recently, within the last few thousand years, she estimates, the Sun has been traveling through a relatively low-density interstellar cloud.

“This cloud, although low density on average, has a tremendous amount of structure to it,” Frisch said. “And it is not inconsistent with our data that the Sun may eventually encounter a portion of the cloud that is a million times denser than what we’re in now.”

Frisch believes the interstellar cloud through which we’re traveling is a relatively narrow band of dust and gas that lies in a superbubble shell expanding outward from an active star-formation region called the Scorpius-Centaurus Association. “When this superbubble expanded around these stars, it expanded much farther into the region of our galaxy between the spiral arms, where our sun lies, because the density is very low,” Frisch said. “It didn’t expand very far in the direction parallel to the spiral arms because it ran into very dense molecular clouds.”

All of this research, and much more I have posted in threads such as the following.

edit on 24-9-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: add links.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:37 PM

Originally posted by thedayafterroswell
I say bring on the melt. Things will change, Earth's climate is constantly changing. Organisms will adapt, evolve, and survive including humans.

There will be some hard changes, as they have happened in the past. During the Medieval Warm Period Egypt suffered the worst floods and famine which have been unmatched for the last 2,000 years.

Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt AD 930–1500 and their climatic implications
by: F. Hassan
In: Quaternary International, Vol. 173-174 (October 2007) , p. 101--112.
Citation format (all formats): plainHarvardDIN1505simple HTML
Show internal link to this resource?
You can use this internal link to create references to this resource in your discussions. Just copy this internal link and paste it in your discussion text.

Resources (URL, PDF, PS...)
DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2007.06.001

Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur at AD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.

In the U.S., and other areas around the world it has been found that sea levels had increased, and floods became worst, making many civilizations and people to have to move and adapt, or die trying.

The only thing we can do today is still adapt, we can't change, stop nor mitigate Climate Change. The climate is ALWAYS changing.

edit on 24-9-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:47 PM
Sure there are plenty of junk web sites out there posting claims that global warming isnt happening, jumping to conclusions for which they have no scientific evidence to support, but when you read the articles, it becomes very evident that they have no scientific evidence to back their claims. When you take the time to look for legitimate scientific evidence, it becomes obvious how completely void of real science these junk reports are.

You people can live in denial if you want. Meanwhile glaciers have retreated exposing soil that has frozen for over a million years, see links on the front page.

But hey, please point out how these article prove the Earth was warmer
during the time of the Vikings. How did they come to their conclusions?
edit on 25-9-2012 by poet1b because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Yeah, they flip flop or seem to have. What real science!

Here is an example of what a real scientific reports look like.

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or δD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record presented by Jouzel et al. (1987) was the first ice core record to span a full glacial-interglacial cycle. That record was based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica. The 2083-m ice core was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to ~420 kyr BP

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by poet1b

First of all you seem unable to understand the difference between anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change and NATURAL Global Warming/Climate Change...

Second of all, nothing that you said refutes any of the evidenc eI provided, and in fact all the links I gave are actual scientific research done by real scientists...

Nicy try, but all you have shown is that you are unable to see the difference between "anthropogenic" and "natural" Climate Changes...

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by poet1b

Yeah, they flip flop or seem to have. What real science!

Here is an example of what a real scientific reports look like.

First of all, how about you learn on how to properly discuss a topic instead of just making callous claims based on emotions?...

EVERY excerpt I gave comes from peer-reviewed scientific research papers... Most of them are SUMMARIES on what the research found out.

Second of all, yes there is a correlation between temperatures and CO2, and that correlation is that CO2 levels LAG temperature changes an average of 800 years...

Third of all, during the Medieval and Roman Warm periods temperatures were WARMER than now, yet CO2 levels were LOWER than now at around 280-290 ppm.

All of the above, plus the fact that the areas that have warmed the most during the ongoing NATURAL Climate Change are remote/far away from sources of pollution, are clear tell-tale signs that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse at the levels found on Earth's atmosphere...

edit on 27-9-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in