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.

 

Bloomberg: What everyone knows is that "the climate is changing but is it cyclical or secular?"

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Just saw this come across the breaking news wire, I am assuming from a press conference that must be taking place? I thought climate change was still much in debate, this is a pretty blanketed statement wouldn't you say?

Figured this statement by Bloomberg makes for a good topic of discussion nonetheless.

I have found no specific articles to directly link to so far other than what is being tweeted across various breaking news websites.

Source 1
Source 2

Note: the information on the source links posted is static information.

ETA: Here is an excerpt from an article that may shed a little more light on the question.

Is Climate Change Cyclical? NASA Study Suggests Yes



The severity of the current Climate Change “crisis” has been blamed almost exclusively on man-made carbon-dioxide emissions and that the change is permanent. A recent study conducted by several universities as well as NASA point to an “inconvenient truth” – that neither of these statements is true.

Antarctica’s climate was once warm enough to sustain substantial vegetation including trees. How warm? Some estimates place it at 20 degrees warmer than present day.

That temperature was determined after studies were conducted on sediment core samples that contained plant leaf wax. The samples were pulled from beneath the Ross Ice Shelf. According the data that the team gathered, 15-20 million years ago the Antarctic was a far warmer and wetter place than previously imagined. Temperatures have been estimated reaching as much as 45 degrees Fahrenheit and precipitation was several times higher than what the region currently experiences.


Full article on AmericaSpace.com
edit on 10/30/2012 by UberL33t because: ETA




posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 


They are cutting down the rainforest at an alarming rate and that is going to directly affect the climate and air quality of this planet. The marshlands and aquifers work to filter our water and they are in danger of disappearing altogether within the next 100 years or so. The reefs being destroyed are going to negatively impact the shorelines. These are not luxuries, rainforests, wetlands and reefs.

They are the planets vital organs.

This is not freaking cyclical. It can and must be stopped or we will die as a species.
I just don't see how Bloomberg presumably a smart man, doesn't get it?



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The climate has never stopped changing?



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by UberL33t
 


They are cutting down the rainforest at an alarming rate and that is going to directly affect the climate and air quality of this planet.


Very true, but its not YET! the cause of climate change. Anyone who researches the subject properly know its cyclical.

I do wonder though if the corpo's have done there sums and realised if they can make us all use less, then they can cut down more trees to increase there already bloated profits?



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant and reply to post by yourmaker
 


I think you both nailed it imo, in that it's a cyclically changing climate and always has been but is (albeit debatable in some circles) being exacerbated by our civilization.

So in essence, it's both, seems like common sense to me, keeping in mind that comes from a lay person in regards to the workings of our past, present, and future global climate



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by UberL33t
 


They are cutting down the rainforest at an alarming rate and that is going to directly affect the climate and air quality of this planet.


Very true, but its not YET! the cause of climate change. Anyone who researches the subject properly know its cyclical.

I do wonder though if the corpo's have done there sums and realised if they can make us all use less, then they can cut down more trees to increase there already bloated profits?



I'm sorry but how do you know this again?

Let's not wait and then go "oooooops my bad"

100 years from now. I can see us standing with thumbs up arses going, "geez we should have started sooner" and I guarantee we will also exclaim...."But how could we have known?"

Waaaa waaa waaa. Too Late.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by newcovenant and reply to post by yourmaker
 


I think you both nailed it imo, in that it's a cyclically changing climate and always has been but is (albeit debatable in some circles) being exacerbated by our civilization.

So in essence, it's both, seems like common sense to me, keeping in mind that comes from a lay person in regards to the workings of our past, present, and future global climate


Totally and anyone who doesn't acknowledge a human contribution is suspect to me.

The oil industry is rolling in dough. They can buy a lot of people.
Not saying everyone is part of their conspiracy to keep oil prices high and drilling in demand in spite of events like the Gulf Oil Spill. Some people are just easily swayed by propaganda without tracing it to its source and recognizing a vested interest. We are not talking Al Gore and his measly carbon credits. That's chump change. We are pretty much talking the most profitable enterprise in the world. We are talking what wars are fought for and nobody is fighting a war over Al Gores carbon credits.



edit on 30-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Personally, I think it's almost 100% cyclical. The people who even suggest mankind has the power to inadvertently bring radical changes to Earth's climate are the very picture of hubris. We have a big ball of fire that sets our thermostat and it does it whether we like the setting or not. Thankfully..it's been a stable influence for a few thousand years now at least. ....with 4 billion years or more of history we have NO clue of though, it's a little hasty to nominate ourselves Masters of the Universe and able to trash hole planets without even meaning to.


On the other hand, we shouldn't NEED Global Warming as an excuse to look around and say the Pacific shouldn't be thoroughly saturated with plastic suspended at or just below the surface. We shouldn't need that to look back upon our own industrial history when the air was so thick, one literally coughed on it......and China's industrial cities can remind us any time we forget, to note we need to use clean technology WHENEVER that is physically possible and viable.

So..I don't buy man made global warming. Not a bit for cause/effect. I just don't think I should have to, to say we pollute like it's a prize to who screws things up the most and global warming being natural doesn't make flammable water, toxic air and fake food natural to tolerate.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I don't know if mankind is responsible for global warming but if man did create it.... it's Obama fault; or at least that's what the ATS conservatives want me to believe.


edit on 30-10-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I think you have drank way too much of the koolaid, the Co2 content of the atmosphere has been way higher many times without any "out of control" warming.

The temperature of the planet has been far higher than now, without destroying all life, in fact life flourished.

If a 2mile wide meteor hits the ground with more force than all mans boms and nukes combined thousands of times over, and life remains, there is nothing we can do to end it.

One volcanic eruption spits out thousands of times more greenhouse gases in a single day, than man in his entire existance, if the earth can survive this, it can survive us.

Sure we may do some changes, some may even be unwanted or detrimental to man, but the world will not suffer any at all from it.

We are not "Gods" we are men, we are weak and patheic, we are of little concern to the earth at large.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


So I guess a more precise debate would be likened to...are environmental changes we as a species have made to this planet in our run contributing to or effecting in any way an already cyclically changing climate completely out of our control at this level of advancement.

I can see how it may appear to be contributing in some circles, but I would have to agree with you in that there is nothing (historically/terrestrially speaking) to compare the environmental effects we've had on this planet to.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
we are a virus, more or less. merely a self-aware virus.

what happens when your body gets over run by a virus? it starves off the virus and raises it's temperature to kill of the virus. famines? global warming?

as above, so below.

we've over run our host. Mom's waking up and you better believe Her immune system is about to kick our ass!



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


Easy on that generalizing. People on the left don't like it any better if I say they all try and convince the world how Marxist socialism is the only true path to enlightenment and utopia.
Some do think that...but saying it that way? Err.. Almost trollish, huh?

Rumor has it, I really do have a Left turn signal on my pick-up truck. It must have come with one...but I wouldn't know out of general principle. (I'm only half joking)...and I'm not the only conservative today also saying 'cool it' on the Obama bashing while Americans are suffering greatly. Both sides have their trolls...and, in respect to who some have been in the past 24 hours...I'll amend that to say each side also has it's people who are just apparently blinded by this damned election and all the bad juju it's carried with it.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by newcovenant


I won't argue with your last line but I will argue with the rest of it.
We have had an enormous impact on the planet.
Science is a challenge but really worth the trouble.
Study the relatedness of things instead of simply
isolating random data because it fits your argument
.
Makes a big difference in your results.

The Concept of the Ecosystem




You can't "just plant more trees."
Maybe those teachers were trying to move you along and out of their class. It happens.

An old-growth forest (also termed primary forest, virgin forest, primeval forest, late seral forest, or in Britain, ancient woodland) is a forest that has attained great age without significant disturbance, and thereby exhibits unique ecological features and in some cases may be classified as a climax community.[1] Old-growth features include diversity of tree-related structures that serve as diversified wildlife habitat that leads to higher bio-diversity of the forested ecosystem.



edit on 30-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


What does a video about deforestation have anything to do with anything I said?

All the trees and plants will regrow, meteor strikes have already killed all the plantlife on earth, as have ice ages, yet here they are.

Science is wanderful, I got an A in every single science class I have ever taken, including college, can you say the same? I think not, as evidenced by your lack of understanding on the subject matter at hand, which is a quite easy subject compaired to many other topics in science.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join