Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:48 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 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Your question has been answered, now it is just idiotic.

If this is all you have, then your arguments, such as they are, are meaningless dribble.

This is exactly what Al Gore and his buddies do, meaningless dribble, slide shows and charts with meaningless data and ultra stupid rhetorical questions.

Laugh all you want, chant your mantra again and again. Repetition of dogma is the sign of the uneducated.

P



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


You cannot answer it.

slide shows and charts with meaningless data and ultra stupid rhetorical questions.

Its your graph, and you don't even understand it.



Too funny!


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?
edit on 6/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 

Thankfully your wind is hydrogen sulfide, which is why it stinks, Methane is belched by animals, although I did hear a horse f**t once.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


CO2, last time I looked, it is 393 parts per million, that is less than one percent of the total atmosphere, just how can so little have such a huge effect on the other ninety nine percent? (roughly typing).



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


Why not answer that question yourself!
Research the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and the significance of the ppm rate.

Make your own mind up.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss
 


Both those nuclear plants were safe until one was hit by a Tsunami, the other was humans messing about with the controls, in the case of Chernobyl (Russian for 'black cloud'!) the experiment the controllers were trying got out of hand.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by pikestaff
 


Why not answer that question yourself!
Research the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and the significance of the ppm rate.

Make your own mind up

I would, but some of the terms used, and figures quoted, just numb my mind, I can understand simple quotes like " volcanic activity has gone up %300 in the last 2,000 years" but having to leaf through a dictionary every fourth word is just too tiring.Plus all the shorttend words like AGW, USGS, NOAA, NASA, (I know that one) PUC, NGO's, the list goes on.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


You just need to look at the effect sunlight has on CO2. And then look at the relationship CO2 has with temperature. And then look at the historical record of CO2.

Thats what I did.

I found that CO2 and solar radiation have a specific relationship. I found that historically Co2 has had certain levels that occur naturally. I found that now humans have pushed Co2 out of he natural cycle.

All of that is basic fact. I don't need to have a politician tell me, you cannot make it up or invent a science to prove it, its fundamental, testable and observable. Basic.

It is basic math then. Co2 effects temperature, it is basic physics and we are putting Co2 into levels outside of the natural cycle. Then I found obsrvations that support the facts globally, temperature is rising. I link a video on page 1 i think as just one such observation. Those observations are basic and you don't need to speculate or interpret the observations, they are global ice melts happening at a faster rate.

I then looked at the possibility that other sources could be the cause. The sun, underwater volcanoes, cosmic radiation etc etc. You name it, I looked at it. Or had it thrown at me, as happen on ATS.
I found them to be unsupported. I then went back and found it undeniable that if we pump copious amounts of Co2 int the atmosphere independantly of the natural cycle we will have an effect on the temperature of the planet.
And that is what I am observing via a number of sources.

As I said, make your own mind up. I did and I didn't need Al Gore or any other politician to do it for me.

The other thing I did was look at all the denial material and the science and looked at who was funding it and why.

I also looked at the media attention and the percentage of reports for and against relative to the scientific material for and against.

What I found was that scientifically the material was overwhelmingly supporting the fact that we are effecting the climate. What I found in the Media was that it represented the arguments against science at a disproportionate rate to the scientific community.

This all but solidified my position, because if the media is representing diessent on par with science when in reality the scientific communty shows no such disssent then something must be up. Because the media never report the truth.

And in this case they are onsong with creating the myth that there is scientific debate over the subject when there is no such debate.

Added to that I researched groups like OISM which put out that Oregon petition claiming scientists(31,000) were arguing against AGW. I found this to be a think tank group funded to disseminate propaganda against the scientifc community.
I found this type of behaviour to be the norm for most propaganda arguing against science. Again, you can find this out for yourself by merely looking at your sources.

You can find this all yourself.
There are studies on scientific journals compared to media reports on global warming.
You can research the groups that produce things like the Oregon petition and other propaganda etc for both sides of the debate.

Do it for yourself.

I did.

What I found is that it comes down to udeniable science and common logic.
CO2 effects temperature. We are pumping CO2 in huge amounts outside the CO2 cycle, a cycle which previously had an input/output balance.
We are observing global changes related to temperature increases.

The one thing that struck me was this.

We get hundreds of thousands of years of climate data from Vostok. 400000 thousand years of atmospheric and climate data.
It is melting. 400000 years, and now its melting. And melting faster than they thought it would.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Wow, I wonder what has change dramatically that 400000 thousand years of Ice is now melting.

What do you think has changed?

Find out for yourself.

I did.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Where did Al Gore come up wiht the Ice Age?


The weapon of desperation from skeptics, bring up a politician from a 7 year old movie.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Arguing with skeptics is like arguing with religious fanatics. Theycan't even get the basic terminology straight.

A cooling spell is not an Ice Age. Ice Age happens for the whole planet.

The fact that Alaska is waffling is very, serious indeed.
edit on 6-1-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Christosterone
 


Correction:

It was a thesis brought up by a crackpot scientist that the mainstream media grabbed onto and ran with.

If you actually looked, you won't find more than a published paper or two, actually supporting this theory.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


There is one single principal you have wrong, and the historical records show it clearly. If only you would look at it!

You said "It is basic math then. Co2 effects temperature,"

CO2 rise follows the rise in Temp. Temp goes up due to the Sun increasing it's output and CO2 rises in response. One is causal the other is effect.

But you can't see that because you are so convinced that you are right you become blind to real science.

If you were right, the current CO2 levels would have already pushed us into an ice age, but they have not.

I am not going to argue this further, I am sick of the stupidity and I am sick of your smug attitude.

P



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
wow... i thought i was having some internet issues since every time i hit the next page button i'd find the same responses as the previous page. thought it was lag but nope just a waste of time



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 




The suns output has not changed significantly in 50 years, but CO2 output by humans has. Its called solar irradience and is easily researched. lasp.colorado.edu...


In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

www.skepticalscience.com...


Explain how the sun is burning coal, burning forrests, drilling oil and converting into fuel which is then burned and converted into exhaust gas.

Explain that by the sun.

It is clear you have no idea what the topic is.

The actual debate is that for the first time in the historical record MAN IS DRIVING CO2 rates OUTSIDE OF THE NATURAL SYSTEM.

Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Co2 effects temperature too, its a fact of science. Undeniable. We are driving CO2 levels independant of any cycle. FACT.
We are warming the planet: Fact.



This is fun.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:16 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?




P.S. Just to help you out, yes historically CO2 level have been driven by temperature......BUT CO2 effects temperature. For the first time ever in the historical record HUMANS are driving CO2 levels IDEPENDENTLY from the natural cycle.

This means that your historical record is irrelevant! Yes, its irrelevant. Read that again, your argument is irrelevant and your graph is the very thing that proves it.
Historically tempreature drove CO2, BUT NOW we are doing it.

Thats the whole problem.

When you grasp that simple and undeniable fact, you might actually start making sense.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Im telling you- its the food they are forcing us to eat. Gives everyone gas.

lets label the food cause the busses are getting stinky lately which makes it hard to breathe.

why dont we just make giant air neutralizers? wont that make everyone happy?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   
A localize cooling in the "proof" to deny what happens to the rest of planet... but hey. US is the world, what happens outside is just imagination and propaganda from the enemy
edit on 7/1/13 by blackcube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
but hey. US is the world, what happens outside is just imagination and propaganda from the enemy


China emits almost twice the CO2 as the US does, please go ride their asses for awhile... Oh wait, nobody does that because China has been smart enough to not politically latch onto the anthropogenic climate change ponzi scheme. Unfortunately, these ponzi schemes were started by and produce ridiculous currency for Democrats in Washington DC so we all have to listen to the incessant nonsense spewing from the media (profiteers) and the scientific community who makes their money from grants given largely by the Dems who run the carbon credit companies and social engineering programs.

Ice age? Bring it. Warming? Bring it. Amazing thing about the globe, it is never static and everything changes. Man will either learn to adapt or man will die. That adaption can be to find new opportunities in whatever future climate we face or it can be tucking their tails between their legs and whimpering in the corner about those big meanies who don't care about the world.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Christosterone
 


Ice age makes more sense if you thinka bout the underground bases, would they the elites rather escape from the unbearable heat or the ca ca coold?

NO Spots, that is a global cooling period. My view is that this is wacky weather, last year was hurricane Sandy and Isaac that caused a delay to the National Republican convention.

Either way we are in a bad predicament.pleasingly plump
edit on 12-1-2013 by MarkScheppy because: add





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join