The True Unconventional Truth

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Hi. I'm John Silverswan and I am here, in science forum, once again. I want to show that logic can easily be applied to see the truth behind this screen of lies which the Big Paid Media has put in front of the people's eyes to blind us from said truth. And that if anyone starts doubting certain aspects, then the typical reply comes: "you were paid by the Oil Industries". Wow. That's some big scientific argument. Following that logic, if I doubt Creationism, the reason would be because "I were paid by Oil Industries". Geez, people must be rich; I am starting to wonder how come there's still a low-income class. That's some stupid argument, which you never see in other scientific debates and which, I feel, proves the fact one can't oppose another's opinion with facts, so one must use typical childish accusation tactics instead.

So, we all heard of this Global Warming thing. Did you know - fun fact here - that in the 70s, the big news was about Global Cooling and not Global Warming? Interrestingly enough, the Big Media was promoting Global Cooling theory to scare us into abandonning our culture and technologies. But there was a small problem with Global Cooling propaganda: it wasn't scary a bit. So what? We will have more skiing days. Sahara desert will lose ground and start being fertile. Things like that. So some decades ago, the Big Media abandonned Global Cooling scare tactic, and got thinking. You have to excuse their slowness; you see they are so rich they pay other people to think at their place because otherwise their brains would fry due to sudden usage.

So around 2000 they finally got it: They will promote - attention, ladies and gentlemen, this is big - Global Warming instead of Global Cooling. They decided to make the irrealistic Kyoto treaty, the Green Campaign... When it was obvious Kyoto treaty wouldn't be fufilled, well they gloated their "victory" and went on saying people just couldn't stop consuming gasoline. Well, Mr Hidden Hand Behind Cultural Influences, we'll stop consuming gasoline once you start distributing those technologies which military and elite uses and which you keep hidden from us. We are not in Sahara desert, we have a culture going on, an economy. These allows individual freedom, and from this freedom springs arts and private entreprises which defines our culture. We can't just throw all that out of the window, and come back to bronze age. This would mean other cultures, say North Korean, will gain strategical grounds, as government sectors need private sectors for recruits and new ideas.

But the shadow Government, the Hidden Hand (call it FEMA's "replacement government", which is sitting under Mount Weather, waiting for a state of Emergency to throw out current president, convert people to labour force, and impose tyrranical domination over all - call it communism, nazism, or zionism), doesn't care about cultures, it's everywhere. All it cares about is money and more labour force. So it actually promotes low-technological levels in population. It bombs Middle East and corrupts American & European economy so that "They" get the good stuff and "You" end up getting nothing - why should the people get access to advancements, right? People are just people, disposable.

So, anyway, They (you know, the big serious guys who wants to dominate the world) pushed a scary theory: Global Warming. Ooh, that's scary, right? The Earth would be warming a couple of degrees, which would be enough to flash flood New York, make malaria multiply at superman-ish rates, and instantly melt gigatons of ice in the two poles. Wow, that's scary. If only I knew it was so scary, I would probably have decided to wear Global Warming disguise next Halloween, think about the amount of candies I would get.

So they reviewed all these temperature data that we have recorded, and they made it into this ever-popular, superstar chart:



And then Al Gore put on his dramatic face and made a movie, Unconventional Truth, in which he tells us, with a straight face, that no, Earth is warming, not cooling, and that CO2 traps infrared rays from the sun by reflecting them back to Earth.

Ookayy... Now, has anyone seen that movie? It's quite burlesque; it actually look like that: a movie, meant to entertain, not to inform. You see, it's really hilarious. The guy starts off by telling a stupid obvious lie. Al starts off by saying, "My professor decided to record annual temperature, and the result was staggering: each years, the temperature goes up relative to the last one. "And then Al shows something like that:



Hm. Does anyone see what's wrong with this picture? Well, let's compare it to our Famous Superstar climate graph:



Okay, here I see annual mean temperatures going up, then slightly down, then a bit up,then more up, then a super-drop... It's Irregular. Al Gore's "perfectly regular" description is nowhere near what the records show. I don't know where his professor "recorded" his temperature, on Pluto, perhaps, when it started approaching the sun???

And then he tells us something even more stupid - and that, I keep seeing this everywhere in the Big Media. He goes, "Out of all scientists polled, none of them ever found Global Warming theory contreversial. " Strange. Sympatico.ca, last year: "300 000 experts collectively voiced their doubts about global warming". In Al's time, the Theory was still young; meaning the amount of scientists opposing the Theory was in milions. A number of them were obviously funded by Oil Industries, while others were more honest reasearchers. If only Al could, like, stop living in his dreamworld, with its Pluto-like temperature trends, then maybe could he actually see what's really going on, here on planet Earth, with real graphs and real scientists. But political and financial goals are not always aligned with the people's need for true information and advancements. The one which are at the top wants to stay at the top.

And it goes on. The point is, Now the big publicity is Global Warming. Humans make CO2 which acts like a mirror and reflects outgoing heat back to Eath. Is that supported by graphs? Well, the truth is, IT IS HARD TO TELL - TEMPERATURE RECORD DATA ARE ALMOST NEVER RAW, THEY ARE BEING TEMPERED WITH to "compensate measurement bias". You see, before the satellite era, all measurements were made on Earth, using thermometers. Alot of people think that climate experts just simply take a thermometer, and write down the result. The truth is, the station, in which the thermometer is located, is subject to temperature variation - which means, the station's temperature is never exactly representative of the true temperature. So, the guys take or add a few degrees to try and get a "truthful" result. Here is a paper (one amongst many, feel free to Google your way around) about bias compensation and NASA and NOAA's climate ground data modification.

www.appinsys.com...

for those who don't want to click the link, here's one part of the text:


See www.appinsys.com... for more info on Hansen’s data manipulations.

The following figures show a more recent example of the GISS re-adjustment of data (from: Bob Tisdale at i44.tinypic.com...). The 2000 and 2009 versions of the GISTEMP data are compared. This shows the additional artificial warming trend created through data adjustments.







Since 2000, NASA has further “cleaned” the historical record. The following graph shows the further warming adjustments made to the data in 2005. (The data can be downloaded at data.giss.nasa.gov...; the following graph is from www.theregister.co.uk...). This figure plots the difference between the 2000 adjusted data and the 2005 adjusted data. Although the 2000 to 2005 adjustment differences are not as large as the 1999 to 2000 adjustment differences shown above, they add additional warming to the trend throughout the historical record.


So, obviously, we stopped relying on ground data and, instead, some decades ago, we sent satelite to make the measurement in space. Now the result is much more precise. So, what did the satellite measured? Well, we have it right here:



The satelite sensors receives heat outgoing from Earth.

Wait. Remember how CO2 deflects Infrared rays? And that more CO2 means a better reflexion? Look at Venus. The reason you see it so bright is because she has so much volcanic CO2 in her atmosphere, it litterally mirrors light from the sun back to space - that's called albedo. Well, does anyone see what's being measured by satellite orbiting around Earth? Satellite sensors are monitoring the amount of heat... which has been reflected away from Earth, back to space, due to Earth's growing CO2 layer! CO2 is slowly insulating Earth from sun's infrared rays, reflecting them back to space (where the satellites wait), instead of letting Earth absorbing them! The amount detected by the satellites is not the temperature of Earth's surface (which is under the CO2 layer - Earth is insulated by CO2, remember? That means sattelites in space can't read past it), it's the amount of heat which has been deflected back to space, due to the CO2, and it's growing! We are really undergoing Global Cooling, and it's confirmed by the sattelite records of deflected heat! And that is, also, confirmed by polar ice sheets high-precision measurements. The amount of ice is steadily growing in Antartica.


Doran PT, Priscu JC, Lyons WB, Walsh JE, Fountain AG, McKnight DM, Moorhead DL, Virginia RA, Wall DH, Clow GD, Fritsen CH, McKay CP, Parson AN, 2002, Antartic climate cooling and terrestial ecosystem response, nature 415: 517-20
From 1986 to 2000 central Antartic valleys cooled .7° C per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold.

Joughin I, Tulaczyk S, 2002, Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice streams, West Antartica, Science 295: 476-80
Side-looking radar measurements show West Antartica ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the las 6,000 years.

Petit JR, Jouzel J, Raynaud D, Barkov NI, Barnola J-M, Basile I, Bender M, Chappellaz J, Davis M, Delaygue G, Delmotte M, Kotlyakov VM, Legrand M, Lipenkov VY, Lorius C, Pepin L, Ritz C, Saltzman E, Stievenard M, 1999, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antartica, Nature 399: 429-36
During the last four interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the Earth was warmer than it is today.

Parkinson CL, 2002, Trends in the lenght of the southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99, Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40
The greater part of Antartica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979.


Now, some of you may wonder why after 1998 the satelite sensed less heat; the reason is as simple and obvious as it is because there is less heat to bounce back to space. The solar system travels in space; it is currently entering what NASA calls "the Rift", that is, a zone which can be visible in the night sky and which has a high concentration of nebula. Solar systems hardly follow a straight line. It's in fact kinda sinous, going out and back through the Rift. You can see these nebula in the Rift by looking at the night sky; look at the milky way (especially around Sagittarius or Lyra constelation if you live like me in the northern hemisphere) and you'll see a "rift", made of dark nebulas, which blocks the star's light. Our sun is going in that thing, which means less sun heat is going to reach us.

Scientists believe that these kind of nebulas were the cause for the last Ice Ages. What do you think is happening now, as the solar system is, once again, going back into these nebulas, and knowing that these nebulas can block sunlight and trigger Earth's ice ages?

Now, I am sure we all know, if there's a Global Warming, ice caps are supposed to melt, not gain grounds. But slowly we are starting to feel the effects of cooling, which includes considerable damage to ecosystems, and ice caps expansion.

We are facing a global cooling! How much longer will the lie hold? I can almost imagine myself: we're in 2070, it's july, and snow is slowly falling, and I turn on my holographic TV screen. The anchorman is freezing and holds the mic with gloved hands. As snow sets on the top of his hat and shoulders, he reads his script: "Around -5° C for today, but we promise you, the world is undergoing global warming, I tell you, the snow you see is just some Oil Industries conspiracy... "

lol Okay, See ya,

Swan




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
That being said, I just want to add that I strongly support renewable energy, electric cars (which have the advantage of quicker motor reactions) and I am actually working on self-sustained electricity production. I am not there yet, but I think I am unto something.

No Global Warming doesn't mean we can stop searching for less polluting solutions. We need less polluting sources of energy. CERN is producing antimatter (it decays into light and yields 100% of its energy instead of 10% for nuclear) but that's too unstable, so for now electricity is our best bet... But a way has to be found to produce it without any pollution. Luckily, Quebec's electricity is from water movement, no pollution here. But alot of other countries still fuel on coal.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Star and flag OP, but you forgot to mention how al gore was first a champion of global cooling, then global warming.

Or how he has every light in his house on during earth hour that he sponsors( you know where we are all suppossed to turn off all the power for an hour to make a symbolic gesture of saving the world).
Or how is constantly tells us "little people" how we are terrible people destroying the world b driving 4 cylinder cars, yet he takes his personal jumbo jet everywhere, spewing more C02 in a day than most will in a life.

Other than that, spot on OP, well done.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
So, we all heard of this Global Warming thing. Did you know - fun fact here - that in the 70s, the big news was about Global Cooling and not Global Warming? Interrestingly enough, the Big Media was promoting Global Cooling theory to scare us into abandonning our culture and technologies.


This is simply, flatly untrue. In the 1970s hardly anyone was saying anything about global cooling, and the possibility of anthropogenic climate change was already being discussed as a real possibility and garnering support.

I hesitate to call this "scientists thought global cooling" myth a flat-out lie, but it is not true.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
A link to an excellent review article that shows this frequent canard of global warming "skeptics" to be the product of willful ignorance.
edit on 17-10-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by swan001
 


Star and flag OP, but you forgot to mention how al gore was first a champion of global cooling, then global warming.

Or how he has every light in his house on during earth hour that he sponsors( you know where we are all suppossed to turn off all the power for an hour to make a symbolic gesture of saving the world).
Or how is constantly tells us "little people" how we are terrible people destroying the world b driving 4 cylinder cars, yet he takes his personal jumbo jet everywhere, spewing more C02 in a day than most will in a life.

Other than that, spot on OP, well done.


Al Gore has nothing to do with the topic of climate change. The evidence, of which there is plenty, speaks for itself- and you'll notice none of it is published in scientific journals under the name "Al Gore."



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Wait. Remember how CO2 deflects Infrared rays? And that more CO2 means a better reflexion? Look at Venus. The reason you see it so bright is because she has so much volcanic CO2 in her atmosphere, it litterally mirrors light from the sun back to space - that's called albedo. Well, does anyone see what's being measured by satellite orbiting around Earth? Satellite sensors are monitoring the amount of heat... which has been reflected away from Earth, back to space, due to Earth's growing CO2 layer! CO2 is slowly insulating Earth from sun's infrared rays, reflecting them back to space (where the satellites wait), instead of letting Earth absorbing them! The amount detected by the satellites is not the temperature of Earth's surface (which is under the CO2 layer - Earth is insulated by CO2, remember? That means sattelites in space can't read past it), it's the amount of heat which has been deflected back to space, due to the CO2, and it's growing! We are really undergoing Global Cooling, and it's confirmed by the sattelite records of deflected heat! And that is, also, confirmed by polar ice sheets high-precision measurements. The amount of ice is steadily growing in Antartica.



This entire argument is incoherent.

1) If Venus looks bright, it's because it's atmosphere is reflecting visible light. We cannot see infrared, and we know CO2 is transparent in visible light, so the fact that it appears bright means nothing about CO2.

2) The problem with CO2 is not its reflection or transmission of infrared rays from the sun, but its trapping of infrared rays from the surface of the Earth.This is exactly, literally the principle by which a greenhouse works. If you take issue with it, then you take issue with the functioning of greenhouses.

3) These satellite records do not indicate global cooling. This is an inaccurate reading of the data.

4) The growth of ice in Antarctica is predicted by climate change models, and it is matched by melting ice in the Arctic and Greenland. Climate change does not mean that everything must get hotter everywhere all at once.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


CO2 layer WILL induce global cooling. You see... The thing that put me on track was the indonesian volcanic eruption: It produced an augmentation in atmospheric CO2 which induced a major world-wide cooling down. 1815 was know as the "year without summer" because of this cooling.

I do consider you could be right about global warming predicts antartical ice to grow. But then, How can that be called Global warming if entire portions of the globes will be cooled down? I suggest we should call it, Local Warming or Urban Warming.

One other thing I forgot to mention: these "artic is melting" pics. Did you noticed that some of these pictures were taken in the middle of summer, when glaciers annually melt (if you live in northern hemisphere), while the "older picture" of the glacier was taken in winter, when glaciers annually gain expansion?
edit on 18-10-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Precisely. He's not even practicing what he's preaching. That makes me wonder... Is it just some gimmick.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
BS BS BS

The media jumps on anything that gets viewers. The more the better.
Anything from Shark week to DR Oz.

Scientists are doing the best they can given the info their research finds. The media just trys to spin it up to get more market share. Scientists announce an inch the media stretches it inot a mile.
Hurrican Katrina gave us storm disaster shows.
Look at the Lifetime Movie Network it's all about women in peril or titalating sexual themes.

People want escapism and the media will give them the most recent version.

There is no one behind the curtain pulling our strings.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Global warming provides plenty of good stories for the Media. And guess who funds scientists... politicians.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 

First of all I wanted to thank you for the link about the 1970's global cooling thing. I will investigate on the author's background and level of impartiality later. If this PDF proves to be reliable, it could greatly benefit the CO2 fisrt-stage-reflexion theory, as it is reinforcing one of its weakest points. Now... about greenhouse:

To trap something you have to apply some force to it. In the case of radiation, you gotta reflect it.
There is a major difference between the way a greenhouse works and how CO2 gas works. The Greenhouse is a plastic shield which allows most frequencies (including Infrared) to pass right trough it. These infrared frequencies energizes matter inside the plastic shield, which then heats up air, which can't escape out because of the plastic.

CO2 lets visible light pass right through it, but not lower spectrum frequencies (including infrared). Now, Global Warming states that IR can pass right through CO2 layer in the first place, but then when it is reflected by Earth's surface, it can't pass right through CO2 (back toward space) layer anymore. It states that CO2 has two self-contradicting propeties, while it was clearly experienced, in 1815, that CO2 has only one propety - to reflect back incoming IR (in this case, the sun's), and that fact was proven when the higher amount of CO2 induced global cooling (as logic would dictate, but as global warming theorists say can't happen). Global Warming states that CO2 traps IR by reflecting it back to Earth, but what they forgot is that the sun's IR has to get to Earth's surface in the first place. But how can IR get there if CO2's property is to reflect IR?

The 1815 event showed exactly what will happen if CO2 level rises: More IR are bounced back to space before anything else, no greenhouse effect, just a freezer effect. Now, this was experienced. But these global warming theorists wants us to doubt that and wants us to believe in their illogical claim instead: That IR can somehow bypass passing through CO2 layer in the first place, but then, when they are bounced back to space, oops! surprise! the CO2 layer magically became opaque to IRs. They are saying that CO2 is a door, and that photons have little hands to lock the doors behind them once they passed through the doors. And, they are expecting us to believe this absurdity, even though it has been proven wrong by the 1815 experience. They expect us to put aside past experience, science, logic, and instead embrace biased, compensation-manipulated "data" coming from one human group source - NASA, which is home to ex-eugenism (nazi) members through Project Paperclip, which is wasting bilions of dollars at making Mars a habitable place for the Elite, and which employs members of the Swiss banking families (Hitler's bankers) like the Rothschild (for instance, Lynn Rothschild), which were allegedly responsible for entire economical collapses and for pushing their own agendas like new taxes (see where carbon tax came from?) , weapon distribuion to fuel wars, and domination over world's current governments through financial corruption. I am truly sorry, but I tend to be a bit... untrusty when these same people start pushing a new theory, called Global Warming, and whose goals seem aligned with their economical strategies. Anyone who calls himself a "scientist" (who consider past experiences, level of information corruption, etc) should be... And, Wire, if I may, I might friendly suggest you to investigate in this matter - we cannot afford science to be monopolised by political and economical agendas, science has to stay a democracy's mark, a field in which ideas can be considered or discarded following their level of logic, and not their level of media coverage or key financial figures promotion.

Global Warming idea, if accepted by the people, can greatly contribute to the military's strategical advantage over selected population targets. And if the military is presented with the possibility of tactical advantage, it has the duty, by law, to take it. Now, to who do you suppose the military has declared allegiances once you know its high figures are associated with extremist eugenism movement? And, once you know the answer to that question, ask yourself: would you trust this head of extremisit eugenism movement to give you (a civilian) reliable, impartial and objective informations?

Just some food for thoughts.

Well, see ya,

John.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

CO2 lets visible light pass right through it, but not lower spectrum frequencies (including infrared). Now, Global Warming states that IR can pass right through CO2 layer in the first place, but then when it is reflected by Earth's surface, it can't pass right through CO2 (back toward space) layer anymore.


Nope, this is not at all what it states, and if it did, you would be correct in calling it wrong.

When something is hot (but not red-hot) it radiates heat in the form of infrared. Okay so far?

When visible light hits something and is absorbed it heats it up. Take for example black paving tar- it gets pretty hot in the sunlight. It looks black because it has absorbed almost all of the visible spectrum and reflects none back.

That absorbed visible light has now been turned into heat, effectively. Now the tar is hotter, and it will re-radiate in the infrared. That infrared light will in turn be reflected by CO2.

Got it?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 

You are saying that Global Warming theory say that Earth heats up because of the sun's VSIBLE light (not IR), which passes through CO2 (as it should), that this visible light is then converted to IR by being absorbed by dark zones on Earth, and that that this IR is emitted back toward space (it radiates) and now that we are talking about IR (not visible light), CO2 does block this frequency, thus trapping it.

Okay, let's consider that explanation.

Earth's surface is covered by 50% of airborne water - clouds. If you heat water up, using visible-frequency electromagnetic signals only, vapor rises. This vapor is seen, from space, as a white cloud. This will reflect visible light back to space, as ice does. So, in a way, visible light can't really heat up water, as water would vaporize and turn to white clouds after a short period of time. And... we mustn't forget that water itself is very reflective, reflecting most of visible light back to space like a mirror.

So what's to heat up? Forests are dark, but the tree's leaves actually absorbs visible light to convert water and CO2 to sugar (H2Ox6 + CO2x6 is converted, using photosynthesis, to H12O6C6x1 and O2x6), and all that comes out from this process is oxygen. The plant used the light's energy to break down molecules. What's left to heat up? Non-humid, non-forestial zones. Urban zones.

New York is considered as one of the most polluted urban zone on Earth. It's surrounded by smog. Now, there is a small problem - smog diminishes visibility. It blocks visible light. That may explain why New York received 40 centimeters (1 foot and 4 inches) of snow last winter: it's having more and more trouble at conserving heat, as its smog layer is opaque to visible light.

So what's left? Smaller cities's tar surface, deserts and rocks. 65 milion years ago, before Chucxulub hit, the deserts were alot bigger, going up far towards the pole. After Chicxulub hit, glaciers started to form, and then melted, then formed, then melted, then formed, then melted, then formed, and then melted and now here we are. Each times glaciers would melt, you would get barren, large areas of rock left behind. These large, rocky area were covering alot of regions which are, today, covered by forests or other non-heat-radiating material. These rock were dark, and fully capable of absorbing heat... Much more than the srtipes of roads you have today. Yet it never prevented the next ice age to come back, killing a considerable number of animal and plant species.

Add to that most of the globe is covered in vapor except some special places. I am very big user of GOES-14 sattelite raw images of the Earth. I keep taking a look at water vapor image, and, Each time, I almost never see a totally black, water vapor-less zone (which would be indicative of direct absorbtion of rays by earth's surface).

You pointed out the GW argument that visible light is responsible for Earth's warming, which is then trapped by the CO2 layer. What if I pushed yet another argument... The whole picture of Sun/Earth interaction. Recent astronomical analysis is showing the Sun is having some sort of a fit. It's, litteraly, getting less energitic. Dark spots (these are zones which are cooler than the average surface temperature) started popping all over the sun. That sometimes happen, but it does induces a slight diminution of sun's thermal energy reaching the Earth. This loss of thermal energy created disbalances in the sun, which started to shoot superflares. These flares are made of ions and other particles so we got some northern lights and satellite malfunction recently. Add to that, the sun is going to enter the Rift very soon. This interstellar dark cloud can dim down the sun even more. Experts think that Ice Ages were triggered by that fashion. Ice Ages! Few people realize that -

-in the first Ice Age we were in the Rift.
-in the second Ice Age we were in the Rift.
-in the third Ice Age we were in the Rift.
-in the fourth Ice Age we were in the Rift.

-now, we are heading for the Rift, add to that we are going in with a sick sun.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


No, what I'm saying is quite simpler. You have a net energy flux into the Earth (you must, or else you wouldn't be able to see anything). This will tend to heat the earth, which can be demonstrated by simple thermodynamic relationships. The earth, in turn, radiates in IR as all warm things do. The CO2 blocks this radiation from escaping into space, essentially acting as a blanket.

This is 100% elementary physics.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Another way to think about it is that it isn't only the "dark spots" which absorb visible light; anything that isn't pure white is absorbing some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. As a result, it will heat up.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Originally posted by wirehead

No, what I'm saying is quite simpler. You have a net energy flux into the Earth (you must, or else you wouldn't be able to see anything). This will tend to heat the earth, which can be demonstrated by simple thermodynamic relationships. The earth, in turn, radiates in IR as all warm things do. The CO2 blocks this radiation from escaping into space, essentially acting as a blanket.

That's what I said in my last post.


Another way to think about it is that it isn't only the "dark spots" which absorb visible light; anything that isn't pure white is absorbing some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. As a result, it will heat up.

Naturally. But the warming is much less important if you use clear shades than if you use darker shades.

And, to warm these spots on Earth, you have to have clear sky. That's easy if you live in Texas or in Sahara, but most of the planet is covered by moisture which blocks part of this incoming energy and reflects it back.

Now, on a less scientific point of view: If Earth is really warming so bad, how come

-today's politicians (who are supposedly funded by Oil Industries according to Gore) are promoting Global Warming theory and did not censored the media for it

-glaciers in antartica grow (now here you said Global Warming theory predicts that so let's pass to the next point)

-New York started receiving heavy snow

-Quebec broke the record of its earliest snowfall since eons

-It started snowing in Alberta in the middle of summer

-Last year a portion of Europe (I think it was around Varsovia) received so much snow the authorities had to dig walls through it or else people couldn't pass?

-Graphs show a drop of heat in satelite's sensors, and that's worldwide (remember how Al Gore, to show us the predicted warming we would get, took his little machine and rose a couple of feet from the ground to point at a ludicrously high temprature? Why did worldwide temperatures drop instead? )

-Enonomical figures, like Lord Rothschild, are pushing a new economical currency - that's the reason for the controlled collapse of American, European and Iranian economy - which present disturbing similarities with this new Carbon Tax? Why does it look like the elite is promoting Global Warming to monopolize economy and put more money in their pockets?

-Glaciers grow in California

-Sahara desert is slowly losing grounds, to come back like it was before

-Alberta's, New York's, Quebec's, Europe's, California's and Antartica's annual amount of solid water presence increased at the same time? That makes it worldwide

-Although we are in an interglaciary state, we are much cooler than when we were in the last interglaciary state (and in which humans were numbered to thousands only)? Why is it that more human CO2 didn't make a warmer planet than no human CO2?

-Why climatologists don't listen to astronomers when astronomers point out that going in the Rift might cause an Ice Age like it already did four times before - an Ice Age! That means a growth in worldwide glaciers! A potential threat to mankind, that, for now, only astronomers had the guts to assess. I feel that mainstream climatology is blinding itself from the rest of sciences, and that its allegiance is not to the truth anymore but to political agendas.
edit on 20-10-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
F&S! Finally someone that did a great thread about the Global Warming THEORY.
So many people seems to think that GW is set in stone, while hundreds of thousands scientists are trying to say :''Its not warming, and if yes, too small in amount". But nobody listens to them; why? Because the media is very effective at both brain-washing and shutting down people's opinions. Now, try to say that GW might not be happening, and people around you attack by saying two things, and its always the same two things: "You're paid by the Oil Industries" or "No! You're wrong! GW is happening, even though true experiences on the ground and true data taken on the ground indicates a Cooling".
I also have many unrelated sources (found two years ago, i'll have to search through my database to find them) that indicated the numbers and origins of the scientists that promoted GW and the numbers and origins of the scientists that tried to speak by saying that it is still only a theory:

62 scientists claimed that the world was facing devastating GW; they belonged all to the UN, a group that is widely known to be financed by the Rothchilds and Rockefeller (the sames that you know, try to bring NWO and One Religion on Earth; those that works not for the civilians but for their desires of control; those (especially Rockefeller) that admitted financing eugenism [the killing of the "unfit" and "feeble-minded" for the "best of humanity"]). Do you guys really believe in what the same damn group say about the Earth and GW, while this theory could serve their purpose by showing how "humanity is destroying Earth", a "perfectly good reason" to eliminate 6.5 billions of people (should read the inscriptions of the Rosicrucien Georgia Guidestones, where is it written that humanity should never be over 500 millions, and where the "unfit" baby should be eliminated for the "best of Mother Nature)?
Now:
Over 300 000 scientists and retired professors and scientists (having no need for government grant) around the world showed perfectly good proof that the Earth is NOT exceedingly warming, and that is in fact cooling. In fact, one of their findings was that the Earth was way warmer in Middle-Age, and there no report of people suffering from the warmth. And they have to face the total deafness and blindness of people, and let people discard their proofs without even considering them. And the worst of all, you don't see that happening with any other scientific debate.

But also, how about personnal experiences? I'll tell you mine:
Where i live, we broke the record of the earliest solid precipitation. 5 cm of snow fell 1 month before the usual date, and this happened since the last 5 years. While i put winter tires in mid-November 5 years ago, i now have to put them in the second week of October, and i have to keep them till mid-May, 'cause its still snowing. True, the summers are hot, but we have no more fall and spring, 'cause its cold like if we were in November. And i see this everywhere. England, Northern US and Canada received the biggest snowfalls last years. Alaska broke the record of snow received.
True, Texas and Africa got alot of drought this year, but what do you expect? They are quasi-desert, its gonna get hot during the summer. But the truth is, everywhere else, it is cooling, but nobody want to see it, because that would mean that the media and governments are downright lying to us, and nobody can accept that. They prefer acting like a really dumb ostrich...



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
Now, on a less scientific point of view: If Earth is really warming so bad, how come

-today's politicians (who are supposedly funded by Oil Industries according to Gore) are promoting Global Warming theory and did not censored the media for it


I have no idea what Al Gore said, and I don't care. But I do know that under Bush's presidency, whitehouse funded research into climate change was systematically distorted and obscured.

I also know that there's been no significant policy change regarding carbon reductions, none of these big evil scary taxes, and no major shift away from fossil fuels.

I know that the United States refused to ratify the last major attempt at an international climate change policy agreement.

So I don't see how climate science has a stranglehold on our politics. In fact it looks to be the opposite.



-New York started receiving heavy snow
-Quebec broke the record of its earliest snowfall since eons
-It started snowing in Alberta in the middle of summer
-Last year a portion of Europe (I think it was around Varsovia) received so much snow the authorities had to dig walls through it or else people couldn't pass?


All of these regional changes in the length and severity of winter are to be expected. You're not also looking at the corresponding increased severity of summer.

Again, climate change does not mean that temperatures everywhere increase all the time. You're driving a complex system to higher energies, and the response will not be uniform, for much of the same reason that weather is not uniform over the entire world.



-Graphs show a drop of heat in satelite's sensors, and that's worldwide (remember how Al Gore, to show us the predicted warming we would get, took his little machine and rose a couple of feet from the ground to point at a ludicrously high temprature? Why did worldwide temperatures drop instead? )


Again, I do not know or care what Al Gore has said.

Since we have agreed that CO2 will block IR emission from the Earth, are you surprised that a satellite would register less IR reaching it from the Earth following an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?



-Enonomical figures, like Lord Rothschild, are pushing a new economical currency - that's the reason for the controlled collapse of American, European and Iranian economy - which present disturbing similarities with this new Carbon Tax? Why does it look like the elite is promoting Global Warming to monopolize economy and put more money in their pockets?


I have no idea about any of this, but none of it relates to the evidence which is what I'm trying to discuss. You could spend all the money in the world to try to find evidence that the sky isn't blue, but you couldn't actually make it not be blue.



-Although we are in an interglaciary state, we are much cooler than when we were in the last interglaciary state (and in which humans were numbered to thousands only)? Why is it that more human CO2 didn't make a warmer planet than no human CO2?

You would have to assume that all else remains exactly the same and that every interglacial period should have exactly the same mean temperature for this to be suggestive of anything.



-Why climatologists don't listen to astronomers when astronomers point out that going in the Rift might cause an Ice Age like it already did four times before - an Ice Age! That means a growth in worldwide glaciers! A potential threat to mankind, that, for now, only astronomers had the guts to assess. I feel that mainstream climatology is blinding itself from the rest of sciences, and that its allegiance is not to the truth anymore but to political


Speaking as an astronomer, I can tell you that at least some of our climatological research is based on planetary astronomy. I see no major disagreement with the data. I don't know where you're getting these ideas.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


The people who thought that we were headed for an ice age in the 70's were mostly not members of the scientific community. Pre-1970's, it was believed that small changes in the amount of penetrating sunlight could trigger the onset of a new ice-age. They had reason to believe that the greenhouse affect was being augmented greatly by increased CO2 concentrations, but also believed that this was being countered by low lying clouds generateed as a result of dust, smog, contrails, etc. Essentially, they didn't know where the climate was headed. At this time though, the public weren't to aware of the consequences of climate change.

In the early 1970's, the National Science board released a few documents relating to climate change, but they still weren't entirely sure if we were headed for a period of global cooling or one of warming. By this stage, the former actually had a mixed following within the scientific community and a rather more significant one amongst the general public - though the latter was mostly due to misrepresentations of scientific data in the press. A lot of the speculations were a result of steadily deceasing global temperatures from the 1945 to the 1970's. However, by the time this trend was placed in view of the public eye (in about 1970), temperatures had ceased to decrease and the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was begining to become more recognised. Fast forward a few decades, and here we are. We have a much more complete knowledge of climate change, etc. than we did then. You have to remember as well that it wasn't until the 1970's that records of global temperatures were being compiled. It should also be noted that, even despite the lack of understanding of climate change and being on the back of a 25 year decrease in temperatures, scientists still knew that such trends were not reason enough to make predictions on global warming/cooling, etc. The fact is that these trends were quite poorly understood and no one thenn really knew what brought them about, which is what gave rise to much of the conflicting opinions of the time.

It's also important to note here that weather does not equate to climate change. A 10 year trend, for instance, is not basis to make any scientifically valid claim in terms of climate predictions. A much more sound indicator comes from observing glacial patterns, since they are some of the more sensitive landmarks to climate change. The following picture shows a compilation of measurements described by Mark Dyurgerov (2002) (later updated by Dyurgerov and Meier (2005)) and archived at the World Glacier Monitoring Service.



From the 2005 paper:


Several independent observations can be applied to confirm the reliability of global glacier volume changes.

First, the general trend in volume change and variability are close to those of previously calculated and published results (Dyurgerov and Meier, 1997a, 1997b; Warrick et al., 1996; Dyurgerov, 2002).
48

Second, very pronounced peaks in the globally averaged annual mass balance time series curve are found in connection with the strongest explosive volcanic eruptions, in particular Mount Agung in 1963, El Chichon in 1982, and Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (see Fig. 5), with cooling and positive mass balance found regionally and globally for the following 1–3 years (Abdalati and Steffen, 1997; Dyurgerov and Meier, 2000).

Third, the warmest years in the late 1980s and 1990s correspond to the most negative mass balances and acceleration of glacier volume losses (Fig. 5).

Fourth, the acceleration of glacier volume change presented here shows a consistency with other global changes in the Cryosphere, reduction of sea-ice area and thickness (Laxon et al., 2004), increasing temperature in permafrost and permafrost thawing, acceleration of movement and disintegration of polar ice caps, and outlet and tidewater glaciers in Greenland and Antarctic (Scambos et al., 2000; Zwally et al., 2002; Rau et al., 2004; Rignot et al., 2003; Thomas, 2004).



*If you want to find out more about this graph and its implications, the updated 2005 paper by Dyurgerov and Meier can be downloaded for free at instaar.colorado.edu...





top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join