Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Star for that bit of common sense thinking!

All the Climate Change hysteria ignores the fact that so much historical data shows that the the planet's climate has changed, shifted and morphed either globally or regionally many times, all without the input of mankind. Ice ages and warm periods all came and went before we were here and will continue long after we, or a large part of the human population, is gone.
All we ever seem to hear from the politicians and their scientific advisors is a raft of taxation schemes to fight it, yet nothing of any substance beyond the money making part. More computer models and projections that we can shake a stick at mean nothing, as the data can be twisted and tweaked to determine any of a number of outcomes to suit those who control and disseminate the data. We all know how trustworthy they can be!


So, yes, climate changes, always has and always will. Some dry areas become wetter and others drier. Some become warmer and others colder. It's natural and nothing to do with mankind. We are just passengers on this big rock after all.

We see study after study showing our alleged contribution to CO2 levels etc, but I have yet to see one showing the output of naturally occuring sources, such as surface or underwater volcanic activity. Sources which will put out a helluva lot more than the guy down the road with his Porsche or the power station belching out visibly condensed water vapour.

I also have a chuckle at the new term that was coined - "Climate Change Deniers" - like it was some sort of heretical badge of shame and it's adherents should perhaps be burned at the stake. I have yet to see any of the alleged opponents of AGW state that the climate is indeed static and never changes. In fact, it always appears that it is those calling the names that seem to think we should have a static global climate!

Well that's enough of a rant for now. Think I'll grab another coffee and maybe pass wind in defiance, adding to the global pollution levels.




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358



CO2 follows the temp rise. It is not the other way round.

We are heading for another ice age. Mankind may be helping a tiny bit, but the truth is, it does not matter.

The Earth's heat comes from the big heater in the sky. We call it the Sun. It's output in the past decade has been a lot less than expected.

I think the image says it all!

P
edit on 2/1/2013 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/1/2013 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



You point out the intrinsic relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Its basic science, and undeniable that temperature and CO2 have an effect on one another. Your link shows that.

What it doesn't show is that for the first time in the planets history, CO2 is rising IDEPENDANTLY from temperature.

Human activity is driving CO2 levels. Fact.
CO2 effects temperature. Fact.

CO2 rising independantly from human activity will effect temperature. Fact.

Your link shows the realtionship between CO2 and temperature, it does not account for temperature driving the rise in CO2 we see happening now.

I don't need Al Gore or conservationist to understand basic physics and science.

Co2 effects temperature/temperature effects CO2.

Humans driving CO2 increases independantly from temperature will effect temperature.

Its basic logic.

One of the key principles of science is observation.

Observe,




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSparrowSings
 
correctamundo......man made co2 accounts for .01.....that's "point oh one" added to the air and earth. starr

edit on 2-1-2013 by GBP/JPY because: Yahuweh...the coolest of names, I swear



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Yes Planet does change its climate and morph over thousands of years... man is just forcing it to change rapidly, that's the whole point.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Articles such as that posted here confuse people who don't understand the difference between climatology and meteorology. Meteorology is the weather conditions at a given place at a given moment. Climatology is the weather conditions at a given place over a lengthy period of time.

The fact that someone might be having a cold winter, or even a long series of cold winters, at a given place is a reflection of meteorology, not climatology. And if you read that article, that's exactly what it says:


The new nippiness began with a vengeance in 2005, after more than a century that saw temperatures generally veer warmer in Alaska, the report says. With lots of ice to lose, the state had heated up about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, in line with rising global greenhouse gas emissions, note the Alaska Climate Center researchers, Gerd Wendler, L. Chen and Blake Moore. After a "sudden temperature increase" in Alaska starting in 1977, the warmest decade on record occurred in the 1980s, followed by another jump in the 1990s, they note. The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way.

But now comes cooling. Researchers blame the Decadal Oscillation, an ocean phenomenon that brought chillier surface water temperatures toward Alaska.

The phenomenon of Decadal Oscillation is one of meteorology, not climatology, whereas the "after more than a century that saw temperatures veer warmer in Alaska" bit is climatology, not meteorology.

To answer a previous question, no, global warming cannot cause a global ice age, but it can certainly make some areas of the planet colder. Various models have predicted that the Northeastern United States will see significantly colder weather as a result of global warming, due to that phenomenon's disrupting of ocean current and jet stream patterns.
edit on 2-1-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
burning stuff creates [among other things]...
1...smoke
2...Co2

'cadillac-tic' converters [Honda being the last to adapt them in U.S. -1980 models]
remove the 'smoke' from the natural burning process.

done on a massive scale, this should create noticeable /measureable effects.

but if you want to talk about al gore



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming James Delingpole · April 11, 2012 at 1:40am Science is not a numbers game. As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough." (H/T Marc Morano) Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam. The letter says: We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


ricochet.com...



It is not hard to find the evidence that it is a natural cyclical occurrence after you weed through the propaganda.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink

50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming James Delingpole · April 11, 2012 at 1:40am Science is not a numbers game. As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough." (H/T Marc Morano) Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam. The letter says: We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


ricochet.com...



It is not hard to find the evidence that it is a natural cyclical occurrence after you weed through the propaganda.


Yes, and citing Delingpole is not a good way to start - rationalwiki.org...



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


So because of who wrote the article are you claiming the letter is a fabrication?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


So because he wrote an article NASA and thousands of scientists must be wrong then. Is that what you are saying? I guess the moon landing was a hoax too because someone wrote an article.

The article argues against NASA's involvement and apparently its statements related to predictions, no were does it argue the science, basic principles of physics that prove CO2's influence on temperature( just look at Venus and Mercury, Mercury is closer to the Sun yet Venus Co2 atmosphere of over 90% means it is hotter), nor the plethora of observed changes to the global temperature.

It does not argue the basic fact that for the FIRST TIME in the entire RECORD of the planets history derived from ice core samples and other sources that MAN is INDEPENDANTLY increasing CO2 outside of any NATURAL cycle.

Are you denying that? Because only the most ignorant of humans could argue against these basic observed facts.

It does not argue the basic fact that CO2 does and will effect temperature. Humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere independently of any natural system or cycle. This will effect the climate and temperature. That is what we are observing as a trend Globally.

It is basic logic.

Denial is futile.

edit on 3/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


dad gummit.....01 of the total co2....is not much,fella, that's point oh one of the total. read my lips



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 


Its ppm that effect the system. And we are increasing. Its basic. You can get caught up in the smearing the importance by pointing out the human out put comparative to the over all CO2 cycle. It is a common error amongst the ignorant and those that would deny it has any effect.

The significance is that we are pumping it into the atmosphere were as comparatively the cycle also includes Oceans and other CO2 sinks, like vegetation and land etc that account for the overall CO2 volume and cycle. Because we are increasing CO2 output outside of the natural cycle it is impossible for these systems to absorbe it back into the system.

We are increasing the Atmospheric CO2 by 29 gigatons out of the overall cycle of an estimated 790 gigatons of CO2. And were are still going, at an increasing rate. We have increased the natural Co2 levels as ppm by a third in just over a century.
So your .01 now becomes rather signifcant as it is specific to only ONE aspect of the overall CO2 cycle. That being the atmosphere. Whats more, human are not removing any of that CO2 as would the natural cycle that balances input/output.

And thats all without mentioning the flow on effects/negative feedbacks that add to the atmosphere absorbing more heat due to that CO2 output from humans.

Thanks for pointing out the significance of the human impact on the planet and for also allowing ATS members to deny ignorance in relation to the argument that: because the human output of Co2 seems small to the overall CO2 in the system does not render that volume as insignificant or without effect.
www.skepticalscience.com...

edit on 3/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


IT DOES NOT MATTER!

In the natural cycle of the Earth we are heading for an ice age. There are many who believe that man's additional CO2 is helping to stave off the inevitable. Look at the chart!



We are up near the top where we will fall over into an ice age. The ice age is coming.


The science of it all is being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Believe who you will, but that is all you have, a belief in one side or the other. Science is a prostitute to the wealthy and spins whichever way the money points.

You can not tell the true science for the paid science. The truth is somewhere in the middle and we will never find it until it is way too late.

Think of yourself as a mushroom. You are kept in the dark and fed on bulldust until it is too late. Governments do not want an enlightened people, they could not respond to the demands, such is the magnitude of what we face. Look around at the weather anomalies. It is as clear as sunshine. Speaking of sunshine, look at the output of the Sun over the last decade.

You better hope the Sun gets warmer cause if it does not the bend over and kiss your toosh goodbye.

P



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Now now kiddies, be good little citizens and pay your carbon taxes... You'll being doing a great deed for the politicians governments corporations environment.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christosterone
reply to post by abecedarian
 


This is way before Al gore threw his hat into the climate ring...I am old....
Gore and his acolytes were yet to go after the rap industry when I was a kid...

Environmentalists are the same buffoons who railed against nucleur energy which is infinitely safer and cleaner by exponential margins than deriving energy from convential means (eg coal, etc...)

-christosterone


Nuclear power safer? Ha! Tell that to the people of Fukashima and Chernobyal! I think they may have a different take on that....



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


So because of who wrote the article are you claiming the letter is a fabrication?



No, but I'd like to know how many of those signatories were actual climate scientists and which were the ones that changed the tiles on the Space Shuttle. Plus I automatically distrust anything that comes from Delingpole. The man's a twit.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by atlasastro
 


IT DOES NOT MATTER!

In the natural cycle of the Earth we are heading for an ice age. There are many who believe that man's additional CO2 is helping to stave off the inevitable. Look at the chart!


Just a basic question. Were in the natural cycle is the 7 billion humans burning copious amounts of Co2? Were is it?
Just point it out in the historical record of the natural cycle?


Hmmmmm?

Waiting?

Yep, thats right, it isn't in the record because for the first time in the history of the planet we are putting CO@ into the atmosphere OUTSIDE OF THE NATURAL CYCLE!

Get it yet?

We are driving CO2 output, not any natural cycle.

I mean, it is basic logic, You cannot even grasp the fundamental argument. Its about MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMIMG.

Its the very graph you present that proves man has an impact.


The science of it all is being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Believe who you will, but that is all you have, a belief in one side or the other. Science is a prostitute to the wealthy and spins whichever way the money points.
Prove it.


You can not tell the true science for the paid science.
Science is science, physics and the laws of nature do not change due to currency being exchanged.

The rest of your post is about as significant as your understanding of the graph you have supplied.

P.S. The right hand side of the graph is CO2 ppm. The graph max is 280.


The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earth’s history, the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is much less certain, and the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the past 20 million years. During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than at present, pCO2 appears to have been similar to modern levels. Decreases in pCO2 were apparently synchronous with major episodes of glacial expansion during the Middle Miocene (~14 to 10 million years ago) and Late Pliocene (~3.3 to 2.4 million years ago).
www.sciencemag.org...


We are currently at 390ppm.
co2now.org...

Its increased almost 25% in 60 years. No were, ever in the record is there an increase that quick.

That sick feeling in your stomach right now, don't fight it. Its just the truth sinking in.


edit on 3/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christosterone
reply to post by abecedarian
 


This is way before Al gore threw his hat into the climate ring...I am old....
Gore and his acolytes were yet to go after the rap industry when I was a kid...

Environmentalists are the same buffoons who railed against nucleur energy which is infinitely safer and cleaner by exponential margins than deriving energy from convential means (eg coal, etc...)

-christosterone


nuclear energy is not safe, just ask the folks in Chernobyl, Fukushima and Iran how safe it is. oh and the rest of the world while cesium 137 rains down on us for 30 years more... our global nuclear infrastructure is an abomination and they do nothing but to change the nuclear standards, to keep them running, not fix them but change the safety levels instead.


i don't think anyone, including scientists, know what the hell is going on with our climate but both sides sure use a lot of fear mongering to make money off of the issue.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Just a basic question. Were in the natural cycle is the 7 billion humans burning copious amounts of Co2? Were is it?
Just point it out in the historical record of the natural cycle?

Hmmmmm?

Still waiting?





posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Just a basic question. Were in the natural cycle is the 7 billion humans burning copious amounts of Co2? Were is it?
Just point it out in the historical record of the natural cycle?

Hmmmmm?

Still waiting?




Look at the chart, CO2 follows warming. It is not the other way around. Look at the steep rises of CO2 before each and every ice age. Are you blind!

For the last decade we have had a cooling trend, not a warming trend.

Stop listening to has-been US politicians. Al wants your money, nothing more.

No matter what you do from here on in, the ice age cometh. As I said previously, many believe that the production of CO2, by man, is staving off the ice age. Since science is now a whore, available to the highest bidder, we will never discern the truth from the web of lies and deceit.

Prior to man, there were huge forest fires, grass fires and the like, all pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, year in and year out. Man puts those fires out, usually with a lot of success.

Yes, man is putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but nature does as well.

You claim CO2 is at an all time high, prove it. Don't use science to prove it. For every whore you find, I will find a science virgin to show the opposite. Who is right and who is wrong. Beats me. I can't tell a whore from a virgin without looking at their bank accounts. Science is not cheap any more!

Hmmmmmmmmm?

P





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join