Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rolling Stone article - "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math"

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
edit: think I might have this in the wrong forum...fragile earth might have been a better place so if the mods want to move it please feel free to do so


www.rollingstone.com...

Thoughts, comments
edit on 14-11-2012 by ATS23 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ATS23
 


Thats a rather large article, Maybe you could summarise? as most people will be at work reading this.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by The0nlytruth
 


So that's why the tldr plugin is being advertised on ATS


I'm downloading it now - I'll use it on the article and give you a summary ASAP.


In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures - CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.



Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely.

If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn't pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today's market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Do the math: 2,795 is five times 565. That's how the story ends.
edit on 14/11/2012 by Fazza! because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Rolling Stone is a liberal rag.

Global Warming (if you believe in that tripe) ended 15 years ago.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
WHATS MELTING ALL THE ICE THEN?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


I suppose the same thing thats "melting the ice" or warming every other planet in our solar system.

This is bigger than us.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunchmanstan
reply to post by stirling
 


I suppose the same thing thats "melting the ice" or warming every other planet in our solar system.

This is bigger than us.


QFT

The solar system is entering a more dense region of space and the whole system is increasing in heat as a result. The effects can be witnessed on every other planet in the system, and mankid is not responsible for global warming on Jupiter.

It is WAY bigger then us.

God Bless,



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
global warming is a canard and a dead one at that, calling it a lame duck would be too generous - unfortunately, through PR dispersed over decades, the mindset of 'living life equals evil' has become ingrained in the western societies' psyche.

selective perception has done the rest.

melting is reported, an alledged 3mm sea level increase is touted as 'proof' but noone in their right mind could measure 1/10" in an ocean and land masses are subject to tectonic movement and erosion, so the reference point is missing anyway. Last but not least, the real projected increases are typically in the bracket from 40-80cm for sea level by 2100... none of us are going to witness that, of course.

Note that public releases contain such convenient errors as claims of an uncovered Himalaya by 2036 - rather than 2360, which is just soothsaying, but when found out, all of these things are just 'mistakes', strictly unintentional ones, too. Like posting in another forum.

btw, have they ever talked about the bulk of the Antarctic ice cap? no, only the Antarctic peninsula, which exhibits melt. Q: if current temp is all this is about why not measure it? why the 'ice proxy'? maybe because it's always freezing farther inland and any ice has to travel as a glacier or it would have to pile up indefinitely, right?

Pack ice, which is strictly seasonal, shows another trend entirely but i had to use the Archive to get it

web.archive.org...

www.newscientist.com...

which was quite a while ago, while AGW doomsayers were still in full swing (unlike today), why not reveal details that contradict the official line? if this was a trial, it would be called a framing, wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Finally went and read the article. I lol'd at the part below...

"Say something so big finally happens (a giant hurricane swamps Manhattan, a megadrought wipes out Midwest agriculture)"



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
CO2 is still 393 parts per million less than one half of one percent of the total atmosphere, so how can so little have so much effect? I just don't get it, although I do see the world wide climate does seem to be at odds with what humans consider 'normal' .



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Come on conspiracy theorists, since when does Al Gore and his greedy gang of GW scientists ever lie ?

They are truthful and loving -

- NOT
edit on 28-12-2012 by Rapha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apollumi


"Say something so big finally happens (a giant hurricane swamps Manhattan, a megadrought wipes out Midwest agriculture)"

Yeah like that will ever happen..sheesh

Oh,.
and where are all the glaciers disappearing to over the last 50 years?
dont we need lots of snow and cold temps to make glaciers? hmmm..



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
These same logical fallacies are presented here on ATS in a terribly weak attempt to refute anthropogenic climate change. The same idiotic reasoning that has been debunked time and time again on this site and others.

Freaking ridiculous



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


i wish Al and his merry band of bullchitters would jump on the Fukushima or GMO band wagon, then they would actually become useful.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
WHATS MELTING ALL THE ICE THEN?


More matter in the solar system as we entered an area of space with more density. This adds friction to the whole system as we can monitor a rise in temperature across all planets, moons and even the sun. Mankinds carbon footprint would not effect the temperature increase on Jupiter.

It is warming, but not for the reasons Rolling Stone is suggesting.

God Bless,



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Pick a belief and believe. Life is a lot harder without a belief. We just can't understand it all and need the conviction only belief can offer. It's built into our chemistry. It's an uncompromising force.

Come alive. Go on, squirrel, feel the wind on your ears and may many nuts lay on your path.
edit on 28-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by Long Lance
 


i wish Al and his merry band of bullchitters would jump on the Fukushima or GMO band wagon, then they would actually become useful.


Too bad, environmental protection and 'climate policies' are incompatible from the start, mankind had to live off whatever the soil produced for eons, only recently have we had mining at our disposal. Anything you mine has to be processed, the only way to do that is to use energy... how many options are known at this point? combustibles, nuclear and some hydro power, the rest is mostly feel-good distraction. Solar panels degrade, unfortunately even wind turbines do:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a half life of roughly a decade would be unacceptable, even in the case of base load, but we are talking about one the least predictable power sources.


Originally posted by unityemissions
These same logical fallacies are presented here on ATS in a terribly weak attempt to refute anthropogenic climate change. The same idiotic reasoning that has been debunked time and time again on this site and others.

Freaking ridiculous


just a thought: what would it take to refute AGW, strictly in your opinion, of course.

None of the policies aimed at CO2 reduction, energy conservation, etc are working the way they are advertised, yet people hold onto them for dear life, so there must be ulterior motives involved (esp. biofuel).
edit on 2013.1.2 by Long Lance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunchmanstan
reply to post by stirling
 


I suppose the same thing thats "melting the ice" or warming every other planet in our solar system.

This is bigger than us.


I'm gonna quote you for posting a very truthful statement, as well as a star.

Take this quote from a .gov source that was written 6 years ago now.

epw.senate.gov...




Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.

Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?

Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!

They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.

A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?

And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?

Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?

If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.

For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.


Just a little taste on what you are in for.
edit on 2-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Show me weather records from 2000 years ago and then prove a pattern. I am not talking about compressed sediments either.

Show me and then we can debate.









 
3

log in

join