It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by minor007
BTW heres a hint no planets path around the sun is a true circle....
Originally posted by swanne
Originally posted by minor007
BTW heres a hint no planets path around the sun is a true circle....
If you're suggesting elliptical orbit is the cause of other planet's climate change, aren't you implying that this may also be the cause of our own planet's climate change? Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not?
Actually, I did mean to say Arctic
The ocean surface across the planet is in fact warming.
Despite mixed signals from warming ocean surface waters, a new re-analysis of data from the depths suggests dramatic warming of the deep sea is under way because of anthropogenic climate change.
The heat is getting pulled down into the deep waters.
the deep waters are not all heating up at the same rate
Your whole argument seems to be that there is not enough data.
CO2 levels were higher, but not significantly, millions of years ago, when the planet was considerably warmer.
The science behind global warming caused by CO2 is very well established.
I don't see CO2 as a demon, I see humanities foolishness and greed as being no different than that of a crack addict.
We could all live much better lives with far less consumption. The rewards of technology should be that we work less, and have more time to live creative lives, spend more time with our families, build a better world.
Instead, we have trapped ourselves into a prison of bureaucracy, and the only purpose this serves is to allow a bunch of power mad elites to rule the planet, driving us into self destruction.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Kali74
God, I hate when this happens... I really do. I went to the article you quoted from expecting (I guess based on the name) to read some serious information. But the first line is:
We know that average sea levels have risen over the past century, and that global warming is to blame.
In the first place, I have yet to see a global map that shows land disappearing across the globe under a rising sea level. Forget calculations, assertions, suppositions, and scientific reports.... land is not disappearing across the planet. Seafront dwellers from America to Australia are not being forced to retreat as water covers their homes. Ergo, the sea is not rising.
(Incidentally, before anyone jumps, single-location reports of disappearing land are not evidence of a sea level rise... a sea level rise will occur planet-wide. It cannot occur any other way unless someone has figured out a way to alter gravity itself.]
Secondly, the cause of this non-existent phenomenon is not proven beyond any doubt to be carbon dioxide levels. This is a theory.
Once I get beyond all that, the article does mention increasing salinity levels and this does concern me. But even if the atmosphere is warming at the rate claimed, the increased evaporation rate would cause immeasurably small salinity changes. Ergo, the data may be accurate, but that does not mean the speculation in the article is accurate.
Actual scientific articles do not make such assertions, especially at the outset. They explain a theory and expound on evidence to support it. Unfounded and obviously biased assumptions indicate propaganda, not information.
You mention connecting dots, but that doesn't always give meaningful conclusions. I can connect the dots in the night sky and see Orion, the mighty hunter... that doesn't mean he is going to shoot a literal arrow into the moon.
All-time records are likely to be threatened in normally hot places — including Death Valley, Calif., which holds the record for the highest reliably recorded air temperature on Earth at 134°F. That mark was set on July 10, 1913, and with forecast highs between 125°F to 130°F this weekend, that record could be threatened. The last time Death Valley recorded a temperature at or above 130°F was in 1913.
Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly increased since 1900. Emissions increased by over 16 times between 1900 and 2008 and by about 1.5 times between 1990 and 2008.
A meteor that exploded over Russia this morning was the largest recorded object to strike the Earth in more than a century, scientists say. Infrasound data collected by a network designed to watch for nuclear weapons testing suggests that today's blast released hundreds of kilotonnes of energy. That would make it far more powerful than the nuclear weapon tested by North Korea just days ago and the largest rock crashing onto the planet since a meteor broke up over Siberia's Tunguska river in 1908.
(a plastic island in the Pacific, overflowing landfills, absolutely idiotic (IMO) social pressure to recycle instead of reasonable efforts to achieve the same goal, the destruction of the rain forest, ad infinitum)
Secondly, all the "solutions" to the "problem" of excessive CO2 culminate with an increase in political power and taxation; other potential solutions (such as scrubbers) are marginalized.
We cannot live better under technology and toss off the shackles of bureaucracy by giving that bureaucracy more power over the technology we depend on. We can do so by education and adherence to time-tested principles that once did not emphasize wealth above morality.
Sea levels have risen 14-26 cm I'm not sure why you expect all coastal peoples to have to retreat from their homes for that.
The planet agrees...
If I have a 10 oz. glass of water and add 1/16 teaspoon of salt to it, is the water denser or unchanged? Even if it's practically immeasurable it is different and behaves differently.
They do when it's accepted theory. If I write a paper about the effects on my muscles while climbing Mt. Everest I can open with what we know about gravity even though it's just a theory.
You're right, I should have said something more to the effect of 1+1+1+1+1 = 5 and the ones aren't wrong no matter how people say they are.
Big media actively engages in muddying the waters on GW, and that is intentional.
I am not seeing the data contradictions. I see a lot of nit picking by those who want to deny what is happening, a lack of data in many areas, but overall, the information is as consistent as it could be on such a large and complex subject.
The fevered pitch I hear over CO2 is coming from the global warming deniers, pushed by those who have a lot to lose by the actions we will need to reduce CO2.
I am not seeing any alternative probable causes to global warming.
I see all of these problems as related.
YEP, what a surprise that the only solution offered by the PTB is that we surrender more of our liberty, and more of our wealth, and give them more control.
If we are lucky, and survive, chances are good that Global Warming will be the end of global corporate rule.
I expect any rise to affect all areas equally. If sea level rises 5", I expect all land everywhere on the globe that was 5" or less above sea level to be covered.
Changes in Mean Sea Level (MSL), either a sea level rise or sea level fall, have been computed at 128 long-term water level stations using a minimum span of 30 years of observations at each location. These measurements have been averaged by month to remove the effect of higher frequency phenomena (e.g. storm surge) in order to compute an accurate linear sea level trend.
Perhaps you should look to oceanography to find out a bit more about it.
Such is physically impossible by known physical laws.
but it will not affect one continent and not another, nor will it affect one city and not another.
Incorrect and irrelevant. I am disputing the theory despite the fact I live on this planet, and in any case physical laws do not respond to belief. That argument would be better suited to the religious forums.
True. However, if you have a ten ounce glass of water and add 1/16 of a teaspoon of salt to it, then measure it and find it has 1/2 teaspoon salt dissolved in it, that salt was not primarily from your action.
Gravity has been studied since Isaac Newton, and accepted as an observed phenomenon since before historical records. Are you really comparing it to global warming theory?
If so, I'd like to point out that the theory on gravity was accepted for millenia before Albert Einstein discovered our understanding was flawed under certain circumstances.
No surprise to me. I am surprised that so many are willing to hand over that power to combat something as innocuous as CO2.
I would say that big media loves to pretend to report global warming, but they don't love presenting facts.
If there is some other cause than CO2, then it has somehow avoided being identified.
Over the next few months, and the next few years, the writing will be put up on the wall for those paying attention. Things could start happening very fast. Maybe we have more time, but I doubt it. I'm not normally a doom and gloom person, always laughed at the doom and gloom predictions, but this is different.
I didn't say it would affect one place and not another
I'm sure you didn't miss my tone there and what I meant, nice of you to inject the 'religious' bit though
Understanding it better is great and something we should all strive for, however understanding it better doesn't change the simplicity of when you drop something it falls to the floor.
You and everyone else that denies there's a problem are not lending your voice to the solution
Big media makes their money from sponsors, not from ratings.
The big corporations are more than happy to throw money at any possible explanation that suggests something other than CO2 is causing AGW.
I agree, carbon credits are a terrible idea.
I think we will see how soon or if our predictions are accurate. I hope mine is wrong.