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.

 

Global Warming Much Much worse than predicted.

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by charles1952
 


Models didn't predict we'd be under ice, water, or that that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by now. That's all drivel meant to convince you of the lie that science keeps getting climate wrong. Some scientists did hypothesize in the 1970's that we were entering an ice age however climate science has come a long way since then, and based on info at the time, it wasn't completely unreasonable to think we were.


Aye, we have better understanding of glacial cycles now and no longer expect the Neoglacial to result in a new ice age - notwithstanding which, most climate scientists in the 70s believed that global warming from CO2 would prevent the (then) expected slow deterioration into a new ice age, anyway.




posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
The Solution (global warming) = Widespread Adoption of Vegetarian/Vegan Diets

...

"Some statistical backing for that: A Dutch report, which came out about six months ago, showed that if enough people adopted a vegetarian diet we could reduce the costs of mitigating climate change by up to 70% -- even if people returned to eating meat at levels normal for our grandparents, those costs could be reduced by 50%."


Source: www.treehugger.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by vnmusic
 

Small questions:
How many is "enough?"
Would the economic impact of the losses in the meat industry (and ancillary) be included in that cost reduction figure?

edit on 9/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vnmusic
 



How many more million acres of rainforest would need burning down in order to grow palm oil and soya?

See, for example: www.theguardian.com...

I'd rather eat lamb of cattle raised on British hill farms or coastal marshes - far more sustainable and much less damaging to the environment



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


As a vegetarian, I agree with you. The whole world going meatless isn't a necessity, though I do I like the idea personally. Factory farming can (must imo) be done away with at least if it's going to continue to operate as it does now. This issue has to with more than global warming as well, the environment in general suffers for it and we are in serious danger of antibiotic immunity because of all the antibiotics they have to inject the animals with and then all their waste that gets into the soil and waterways.

We just have to figure out how to feed 7 billion people economically and healthily.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




It was about 1970 when the models predicted we would be under ice by now.


I don't believe that is true. As I said in another post, one researcher proposed an explanation for what he saw happening, an hypothesis. The hypothesis was rejected, precisely because other explanations proved more robust and it did not predict what actually followed.

Publications like "Time" or "The New York Times" are not scientific journals. Their science reporting is necessarily narrow and simplified. Their goal is to sell magazines or papers, and jumping the gun on reporting cutting edge science that might not necessarily pan out is part of that process. It happens today, and it happened yesterday.

Climate models in the 1970's did not predict an ice age. On the contrary, climate models in the 1970's were predicting warming, and in fact models have been predicting global warming since the 1880's (as rudimentary as they were back then).

In any case, no one predicted that "we would be under ice by now". The worst prediction was that crop failures would occur as the growing seasons shortened.

Hyperbolic claims like that do not do anyone any favors.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




Interestingly enough, it seems that Tuvalu is getting larger and is in less danger of disappearing. For the counter-intuitive science, check here and it's links. Text


The islands of Tuvalu are at maximum 4.5 meters above current sea level, and most of it is below 2 meters. Models predict they will be over-topped sometime after the middle of the century (at current trends).

Notice that beaches are not 4.5 meters above current sea level; they are at current sea level. Furthermore remember that sea level isn't 'level'; not only does it change with the tide, it also changes according to the La Nina/El Nino cycle.

One day a king tide during a La Nina will over top the island and render it totally uninhabitable, even if that over topping only lasts for a few hours. And of course that over topping will happen again and again.


What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?



Becker (2011) has examined sea level rise in the western tropical Pacific Ocean using a combination of tide gauges, satellite-based measurements, ocean modelling and GPS, and found that the region is experiencing sea level rise much larger than the global average. At Funafati Island, the study authors found that between 1950-2009 'total' sea level, which also accounts for the rate of island subsidence or sinking, rose at 5.1 (±0.7) mm per year, almost 3 times larger than the global average over the same period.


Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling


As we've seen, coral reefs aren't always capable of keeping pace with sea level rise. To do so they need environmental conditions to be within their 'goldilocks zone'; move outside that and they are liable to drown. It just so happens that global warming is in the throes of doing that very thing. Ocean acidification and coral bleaching will severely curtail or even stop reef growth completely (Silvermann 2009).

But more significantly, a regional sea level highstand thousands of years ago formed the stable foundations upon which the soils and vegetation developed. Even if the atoll coral reefs were able to keep pace with future sea level rise, it won't stop the sea rising above the old reef flats and exposing the atolls to persistent wave attack.

So, although coral atolls may grow as sea level rises, this hasn't always been the case in the past, and won't be the case in the future. Atoll islanders may be hanging in there right now, but eventually global warming, and the rising seas, will make them homeless.





edit on 30/9/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/9/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa

That doesn't wash. It is too easy to hide false claims behind that attitude. If you have a scientific paper making those claims, then "we" can acknowledge your correct argument or show that the prediction was an outlier, not an accepted claim.

Sorry, but it'll have to.

You see, here's the deal. We (those who argue against Global Warming Theory from a scientific standpoint) know your methodology. Look for sensational articles from the press to start a scientific conversation, then beat that dead horse until everyone gets tired of hearing it. Wait for another sensationalized story (they pop up several a day, so you have plenty to choose from) and repeat. Each time, you try to further the opinion you want others to agree with by repetition. If someone offers evidence contrary to your opinion, just wait for the next round and pretty soon people will forget about that pesky evidence. In the meantime, those who found the evidence will eventually forget where it was, and thus they can either spend precious time seeking out those old links again, or they can capitulate to your incessant repetition of propaganda.

Nice M.O. by the way. Sorry I don't have time to play your game.

So, here's the new deal... you present your propaganda, I dispute it using logic and simple facts that are easily verified, along with any appropriate references concerning relatively new discoveries. It may not "wash," but that's just too bad; it'll just have to stink.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


So the answer is that you simply cannot defend your position, because there were in fact no such claims, and you have no evidence. You have pulled your assertions out of your backside, (or possibly from the denier propaganda press).

You know as well as I that a negative cannot be proven. You make an accusation that something exists (in this case some absurd prediction by a scientist that somehow invalidates all other science since) - you have to prove that existence.

One cannot argue for or against something that exists only in your imagination and straw man arguments are worthless. That your point of view depends totally on such infantile diversions simply exposes the emptiness of that view.

Remember when you were in school and the teacher advised you to 'show your work'? There is good reason for that.

Show your work, which is in this case your evidence for the assertions I called you out on, or stop making unsupportable accusations.
edit on 1/10/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa

Defend my position... interesting concept, considering that you are asking for scientific journals. You know as well as I do that most scientific journals are behind subscription walls. I can only access them from the university I attend, and I am sure most of the members reading this would get a subscription screen were I to link to them. I personally hate that and I won't do it to others.

In addition, most scientific journals are pretty dry stuff. I doubt you would be interested in wading through the math.

I have not seen one scientific journal entry link from you, incidentally. What I see when these threads pop up are pop-sci articles that reference the IPCC or East Anglica University (which is funded by the IPCC). I have also not seen you "show your work"... where is the mathematical analysis of atmospheric CO2 re-emitted energy? Where is the trend analysis of the sensor data? Where are the energy equations?

Don't bother pointing me to pop-sci articles or to some "green" website that only exists to support Global Warming Theory. You want scientific journals from me? Let's see some from you. I have read several of them, and I have personally seen the assumptions they make and the leaps of faith they take in creating the doom porn ripples throughout the MSM which is apparently their goal.

Incidentally, several (not all) of those predictions I have referred to can be easily found in a little movie created my Albert Gore Jr. Maybe you have heard of him: the son of a wealthy tobacco farmer turned corrupt politician, who now hates tobacco, the naturalist who got himself hopelessly lost in a tourist section of a National Park, the inventor of the Internet, and the spokesperson for Global Warming through his fake-umentary "An Inconvenient Truth"... which was hailed as the final word on the viability of Global Warming Theory until it was poked so full of holes even Gore couldn't figure out a way to defend it. Yeah, I know, he was never the "official" spokesperson for Global Warming Theory... of course, when the flick was released, it would have been hard to locate any supporter that didn't say he was... and he is not really a scientist... heck, I was saying that 15 minutes into watching that mess... between crying and laughing hysterically. Sometimes you just don't know whether to weep for the future of mankind or laugh at the sheer idiocy it can produce.

Ah, it must be nice to be able to wipe out history with a single wave of your hand across a keyboard. Now if it were only that easy to get the Antarctic to melt, we could all be living in rolling blackouts, paying triple for electricity, paying $50 a gallon for gasoline, and lining the pockets of politicians right now. Ah, Utopia, where art thou?

That darn reality does get in the way sometimes, doesn't it?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I provided the link to the latest IPCC report.

Call it pop science if you want, the greenhouse effect was predicted over a century ago, and at this current time, those predictions are being proved true.

As it becomes more and more obvious that Al Gore was right, how many who voted for GW will finally admit how wrong they were.

Or will they die in bitter denial.

As they say, a picture says a thousand words.




posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

Dear rnaa,

A half serious, half joking comment about Tuvalu.

If everybody in the world coughed up one American penny, we could give Tuvalu two full year's worth of their GDP, or $6,400 to every human on the islands. Then we move them to the Himalayas, now that the glaciers have melted. (Oh, wait...Let's move them to an Asian country.) We can then forget Tuvalu completely, and I don't have to hear about it anymore.

Remediation costs less than prevention.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



It would probably cost more to collect a penny from everyone on the planet, then the amount you would actually collect.

They can all move into your backyard.

As large sections of the planet become uninhabitable, we will see attempts at massive immigration.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



From this graph it is clear to see that loss of Arctic sea ice is accelerating


Purely from a technical point of view you are not able to substantiate such a statement from the data presented on that graph.

Whilst you can state that it appears to have accelerated in the past the current figures suggest that the acceleration has stopped for the time being.

For it to be clear to see that loss is accelerating would require that graph to show each year with an increasing loss, which it does not.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 



Ever heard of Urban Heat Islands? That's humans affecting the climate ..... (cities also affect rainfall. As does deforestation - indeed, tropical deforestation has global implications - has it been dry in Texas of late?).


So by that logic if we are required to remove the human effects upon climate change should we have to remove the cities and the humans?



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

PuterMan
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 



Ever heard of Urban Heat Islands? That's humans affecting the climate ..... (cities also affect rainfall. As does deforestation - indeed, tropical deforestation has global implications - has it been dry in Texas of late?).


So by that logic if we are required to remove the human effects upon climate change should we have to remove the cities and the humans?


Correct

Humans by our presence, have affected the climate. The Ruddiman Hypothesis says we started doing so 6,000 years ago.

Obviously, that's not to say we should remove all humans, but we should, perhaps, accept our culprability.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Technically, the graph does clearly demonstrate that ice melt in the Arctic is accelerating.

Even the cherry picked data denying global warming shows that it is in fact continuing to accelerate.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Hmm, recently Arctic ice has began to decrease again.

arctic-roos.org...

Although I wonder what is meant by unfiltered.

That is quite the steep drop over the last week.

Couldn't find any explanations, but I found this interesting note.

sealevel.colorado.edu...


Now, a large hole (roughly 150 square kilometers or 58 square miles) of near-zero ice concentration appears to have opened up at about 87 degrees North latitude. Small areas of open water are common within the ice pack, even at the North Pole, as the ice pack shifts in response to winds and currents, resulting in cracks (called leads) in the ice. The current opening seen in our satellite imagery is much larger. In 2006, a larger polynya appeared in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, but it was much farther south.


Here is an graph on Arctic ice volume, that illustrates what is happening even better.

www.skepticalscience.com...



Volume is the real measurement of arctic ice.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 



Obviously, that's not to say we should remove all humans, but we should, perhaps, accept our culprability.


Makes a ton of sense to me.



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


Obviously, that's not to say we should remove all humans, but we should, perhaps, accept our culprability.
Setting aside for a moment that absolutely nobody knows how much effect humanity has had on climate, what does "accept our culpability" mean?

Let's say the whole world gets together and shouts all at once, "It's my fault!" where do we go from there? It seems that accepting our culpability has no effect other than scaring the excrement out of every bird and animal in ear shot.

So what are you really suggesting?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join