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.

 

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...

page: 9
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth
 


Yes CO2 is necessarily for life. However it is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that determines how healthy it is to breath. Back when dinosaurs were alive, the percentage of CO2 was much higher. However, it you were instantly teleported back into the cretaceous, then you would immediately notice breathing problems, and then suffocation shortly after.

You have to understand the earth was younger so the trees had not yet converted enough CO2 into Oxygen yet. The increasing CO2 levels is a big problem that wont fix itself. Especially considering the deforestation taking place, its a compound effect that will only get worse We are on a path to destruction.


edit on 14-10-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 

The Mail reporter did not make this up, as some of the more frightened of the AGW faithful have asserted. Those unfamiliar with the UK's standards of reportage do not know that citation to source is not required, and that opinion based upon research can be part of the story. (They tend to believe that readers can do a little follow-up research on their own; funny that.)

Just so people can make up their own minds, these are the predecessors to the thread:

Met Office raw data]

An Updated Hadcrut4 – And Some Surprises

The same goes for the infamous Dr. Richard ("Planet X"/"Nemesis") Muller and his "Koch-funded" revelation. If an interested reader wants to see the full story, they can see what his research partner, Dr. Judith Curry and his employer said about his premature regurgitation. Suffice it to say, they disagree. Or, look for yourselves.

jw



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Just out of curiousity
Has anyone compared the rise in CO2 to the rise in deforestation.
Also doesn't co2 have such an atomic weight that it falls and will remain around tree level...

Thought provoking.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by auraelium

It was the UK MET office(The most pro AGW organisation on the planet) that released this info , you dork, lol


Er, no. That's the point.

This thread should really be in the Hoax forum because the newstory upon which it based is a complete fabrication. The "journalist" David Rose made it all up. He hasn't seen a secret Met Office report becuase no such report exists. And he didn't even bother contacting them before making up his lies.

The Story is a HOAX!


He didnt make it up, Phil Jones hasnt said the data or the graph are wrong, In fact he agrees that it is correct.
It is the conclusions that are drawn that he dissagrees with.Under British law you cannot misrepresent information like that you would be forced to take it down.especially in a national news paper.
No one, only gullible people like you are saying that its a hoax,Jones himself has admitted on the MET website that the graph is correct.no one disputes that.
edit on 14-10-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   


Yes CO2 is necessarily for life. However it is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that determines how healthy it is to breath. Back when dinosaurs were alive, the percentage of CO2 was much higher. However, it you were instantly teleported back into the cretaceous, then you would immediately notice breathing problems, and then suffocation shortly after. You have to understand the earth was younger so the trees had not yet converted enough CO2 into Oxygen yet. The increasing CO2 levels is a big problem that wont fix itself. Especially considering the deforestation taking place, its a compound effect that will only get worse We are on a path to destruction.


Well if what your saying is true,i have nothing to disagree with you on.

I didn't say that it would fix itself,i know you didn't accuse me of that,just making that clear.

I understand that the activities of humans are somewhat destroying the surface crust of Earth and also its atmosphere.

Also the lifeforms and natural resources as well.Although we class that as limited and consumables.Obviously we see the Earth and its surroundings in the same way.

Either way,a tax is not the answer.Anyone with something between the ears would realize that its just a ploy to create a revenue maker.They cant tax much else thats actually physical,so now they are moving to things we cant even see.

It could also be a new commodity for the stockmarket and is going to be.Because we already have everything on there and cant list much else to trade.

I truly believe this will end up hurting the average people,like most of the things they do.How can it not,the carbon tax is fixed for a short period of time,like 3-4 years.Then starts floating,guess where?

On the market.

And,we all know what happens there.

This will only get certain people rich.

Cheers

edit on 14-10-2012 by BillyBoBBizWorth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
Just out of curiousity
Has anyone compared the rise in CO2 to the rise in deforestation.
Also doesn't co2 have such an atomic weight that it falls and will remain around tree level...

Thought provoking.


Yes, human induced changes for global warming do include deforestation.

It is not entirely definitive how you appropriately divide responsibility for human-induced global warming (as there are mutual nonlinear interactions) but the best guess/approximation gives CO2 as responsible for slightly more than half, the largest single contributor (and long-lasting one), with the remainder being taken up by other greenhouse gases and land-use changes, such as deforestation. Limiting non CO2 greenhouse gases is even more important for short-term (~50 years) climate change.

CO2 does not remain around tree level, because otherwise places like Death Valley would get its name by suffocating people rather than being so hot and dry.

CO2 has been measured at all levels in the atmosphere, and if your theoretical understanding does not match experimental data, you need to upgrade your theoretical understanding. In a nutshell, though CO2 is heavier than N2, it can still be well mixed because of entropy and convection, and it is observed in the stratosphere where it contributes to the heat balance of the Earth. Increasing it results in global warming.
edit on 14-10-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
This Global Warming lark confuses me..

I'm getting bloody colder, not warmer! Aha.


great example of how this phenomena was mis-labeled. think of it as "climate change resulting from global warming, which in turn causes increased energy and moisture in the atmosphere as it relates to changing ocean currents and jet streams can result in drier and hotter trends for some areas and wetter and colder trends for other areas at the same time"

I know it's clunky, but theres less confusion

the nort east US is atcually facing a contradiction of sorts, drier hotter summers, colder wetter winters, and during the drier summers, periods of intense flooding

europe is looking at an ice age of sorts potentially

yup, global warming may cause an ice age in europe. look at the latitudes of london and follow it around a globe and look at other cities with similar latitude. now think about the average london winter compared to the othr cities. hmmmmmm



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by mbkennel
 





Curry thinks, incorrectly, that since other people are unsatisfied with the process, this is evidence for some grand conspiracy to make everything up when in truth there is no substantial human effect on climate and won't ever be, contrary to vast scientific evidence.



I agree.
The earth's climate will go continue on,with minor adjustments .
Before the industrial revolution,the climate has been influence both externally and internally.


I don't quite understand your point.

Obviously you cannot ever turn off physics, which is the point of it. Therefore there will always be natural influences on climate, as well as any influences caused by additional human activity. The issue is being able to quantify them. Since over the last 50 years we have developed a good understanding based on highly predictive, mechanistic laws of physics, we are pretty sure that the magnitude of human-induced climate change will be perceptible and significant.

Note that we are currently injecting carbon which, previously, had been locked into rocks for many many millions of years, prior to the evolution of homo sapiens certainly and most probably even all apes.

Also this change is probably irreversible and permanent. The fossil carbon comes from dead plants which grew in an era in which, not surprisingly was much warmer and there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere. Back then, bacteria and fungi had not evolved the biological mechanisms to break down lignins so much of the carbon in trees & wood did not rot, and for many many millions of years the growing plant life in a warm and high-CO2 environment died and the plants' and algae's non-rotting bodies were compressed and turned into coal, oil and gas.

These days fungi and bacteria have evolved the capability to break down such plants, and so unlike previously if this amount of carbon got in the atmosphere, the plants would grow but the CO2 would not be sequestered geologically to reduce the temperature, instead as it were consumed by fungi & bacteria, it would be released again.

So in sum, humans are causing a profound and irreversible change to the atmosphere to a state which has not existed during many many cycles of previous ice ages and glaciations. When this carbon which we are digging up was in the atmosphere previously, animal life was fundamentally different, and there were alligators in the Arctic.

Now do you think this is nothing to get concerned about?
edit on 14-10-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth
 


Agreed. I dont think a tax is the answer. I think it will require stopping the physical actions that are causing the problem. Seems simple but it is not. It is a challenge to find an alternative to the billions of polluting cars, especially when any attempts at such things are suppressed and their inventors suspiciously end up dead.

On the front of deforestation, there are much fewer alternatives to wood. I think it should be law that for every tree cut down 2 must be planted in its place. Oh but wait, that would cost money, so its not really that much different from a tax. So if the timber companies dont want to pay a tax, then they should instead be mandated to plant trees.

We also cant forget that almost everything we use in our everyday life is made from oil. And even if we came up with an alternative vehicle it would still require oil to make billions of new cars. Which I don't think we have enough oil left on the planet for. Just look around your room at everything made from plastics, rubber, paints, polyester, and many other materials. Those all require oil to be made. And when those are made they produce pollution. People forget how big a role oil plays in our life.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 




New tactic, eh? Well good luck with it.

Hell, I don't care if your side wins this battle. If you're lying or if you're wrong, it's not like you'll survive either. You'll die off with the rest of us. You and your kids. And everyone you love. So, have at it, and shut all that hippy, tree-hugger bullsh*t down. Who cares? At least the lefties won't be blamed for f*cking the entire human race over if they're wrong - unlike you people if you're wrong. I hope you're right, but if not, then you screwed all of us forever. And you screwed yourselves and your kids and grandkids too.

If that does end up being the case, then I wouldn't want to be any one of you once you've arrived at the "other side" with billions of people hating you with everything they've got for destroying the only home that humanity would ever have. And for fighting off every attempt to stop the destruction with whatever crap you could cobble together. It'll be a long eternity for you folks - that's for sure.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by Sinny
This Global Warming lark confuses me..

I'm getting bloody colder, not warmer! Aha.


great example of how this phenomena was mis-labeled. think of it as "climate change resulting from global warming, which in turn causes increased energy and moisture in the atmosphere as it relates to changing ocean currents and jet streams can result in drier and hotter trends for some areas and wetter and colder trends for other areas at the same time"

I know it's clunky, but theres less confusion

the nort east US is atcually facing a contradiction of sorts, drier hotter summers, colder wetter winters, and during the drier summers, periods of intense flooding


There's not evidence the US northeast is having colder winters. Two years ago the big blizzard (aka "snowmageddon') was used, falsely, as evidence contrary to global warming. In truth it wasn't. It was unusual because of the large amount of precipitation, not cold temperatures. This large amount of precipitation is explained by actually warmer-than-historical air coming from the Arctic, and yes warmer air is able to absorb more water.


europe is looking at an ice age of sorts potentially

yup, global warming may cause an ice age in europe. look at the latitudes of london and follow it around a globe and look at other cities with similar latitude. now think about the average london winter compared to the othr cities. hmmmmmm


This is so far uncertain, but yes, London has much milder weather than other locations at similar latitudes and significant weather disruption might make London colder in winter, and this is still compatible with global warming.

Skeptics/denialists say "gee waht isn't compatible with global warming". That would be global cooling, say larger numbers of local low-temperature records being broken compared to high-temperature records. (Facts are opposite). Fewer tropical storms and convection.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
If the hippies win,we will all be grazing in the fields like mindless sheep.If the right-wing nut jobs win we will all be grazing at westfields like mindless sheep.

Can i have a 3rd option plz?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
i didn't read through all the replies. i'm too tired.

to the OP: are you saying that 90% of the people who come to this site who believe the SUN is warming the earth and that the earth goes through cycles and that we're in a period of some sort of change (some say warmer some say ice age is coming)...... all that is wrong?

so the sun is not doing anything AND the climate cycle has stopped?


for the record.... i fully believe in global warming that was pushed into fast forward by human irresponsibility and greed.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Disingenious bull---.

Take the highest point and compare it with a short term later to paint a result with no context.

like having a giant hole in a ship, and because the water shifts a bit, water stops coming in for a moment during the shift, then proclaiming the ship has stopped sinking.

Tell you what..show me where it was 20 years before, or 30, etc. That "study" by morons won't come out, because it will show an actual issue. nope..instead, just show a completely skewed data point.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by ollncasino
 




New tactic, eh? Well good luck with it.

Hell, I don't care if your side wins this battle. If you're lying or if you're wrong, it's not like you'll survive either. You'll die off with the rest of us. You and your kids. And everyone you love. So, have at it, and shut all that hippy, tree-hugger bullsh*t down. Who cares? At least the lefties won't be blamed for f*cking the entire human race over if they're wrong - unlike you people if you're wrong. I hope you're right, but if not, then you screwed all of us forever. And you screwed yourselves and your kids and grandkids too.

If that does end up being the case, then I wouldn't want to be any one of you once you've arrived at the "other side" with billions of people hating you with everything they've got for destroying the only home that humanity would ever have. And for fighting off every attempt to stop the destruction with whatever crap you could cobble together. It'll be a long eternity for you folks - that's for sure.


Sounds like the same argument used against Christianity... one size fits all.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
It's not a carbon tax. It's carbon pricing.

A tax is an excise a government arbitrarily cut from its constituents in order to bolster public coffers. I.e., there is no transaction taking place. A sales tax has no direct transaction with the government; said institution simply takes a cut based on some arrived at figure.

A price for carbon pollution expelled (say, per tonne) is a transaction. This, by very definition, cannot be a form of taxation. For it's effectively a business arrangement.

The term "tax" is bandied around because it's a great buzz word for opposition governments to elicit fear by focusing on what non critical thinking voters hold most dear: money. This is why the power of the vote being equal in either an intelligent person's hands or an that of an abject dolt's, is a fundamental flaw of democracy.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnus_Hunter
If the hippies win,we will all be grazing in the fields like mindless sheep.If the right-wing nut jobs win we will all be grazing at westfields like mindless sheep.

Can i have a 3rd option plz?


How about a little learning before you make ill informed statements about hippies, for one? As for mindless sheep, your post at the terminus devolved into something resembling a juvenile's text message so "plz" reserve your insults.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


Sounds like i hit a nerve? I'm sorry if you feel insecure.Was never my intention to make hippies feel bad about eating grass.

Like most people with myopic world views it seems that my satirical encapsulation of both extreme spectrum's of the debate has been well received.
edit on 14-10-2012 by Cygnus_Hunter because: to remove an extra "if"



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cygnus_Hunter
 


The people I hear complaining about the hypothetical future where they'll be forced to eat grass are generally obese. Very obese. Which confuses me; I thought cows loved to eat grass? Also, I think your shift key is on the fritz.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
On the Fritz? Isn't that bigotry against Germans? You see how far PC can go?




top topics



 
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join