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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





But they are still rising ...


No. No surface temperature rise for the last 12-17 years (depending on the dataset used).

If you cannot grasp this fundamental fact, any further discussion is meaningless.




posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


sorry but that's been debunked repeatedly. arctic ice is thinning NOT GROWING.

www.cbsnews.com...

www.slate.com...

www.theguardian.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

I provided a couple of links - to what I am saying - would you do the same - ty

BTW - this has been a relatively cool summer in Colorado w/ from say towards the latter part of june to at least mid-july w/ clouds and overcast.

here is a chart for Boulder : History of Boulder weather



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Ice melt slows considerably 2013


According to this article ice melt has slowed a lot this year due ti cyclones.
edit on 18-9-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

pasiphae


i'm one of the few left on this site that fully believes that humans have pushed normal climate change into hyperdrive. while climate change has always existed it's moving at a rate too fast for us to be able to adapt.


Really???? Humanity can survive an ICE AGE but we can't "adapt" to a world that is still warming up from said Ice Age? I hate to break this to you, but even with the most dire of predictions of GW, Humanity will continue to grow and thrive on this Planet.

Stop the crazy Chicken Little talk please.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

pavil

pasiphae


i'm one of the few left on this site that fully believes that humans have pushed normal climate change into hyperdrive. while climate change has always existed it's moving at a rate too fast for us to be able to adapt.


Really???? Humanity can survive an ICE AGE but we can't "adapt" to a world that is still warming up from said Ice Age? I hate to break this to you, but even with the most dire of predictions of GW, Humanity will continue to grow and thrive on this Planet.

Stop the crazy Chicken Little talk please.


I'm betting you didn't bother find out what the "most dire predictions of GW" are.

Let's see.. shall we?


At 3–4°C warming, widespread coral mortality will occur (at this point corals are basically toast), and 40–70% of global species are at risk as we continue on the path toward the Earth's sixth mass extinction. Glacier retreats will threaten water supplies in Central Asia and South America. The possibility of significant releases of CO2 and methane from ocean hydrates and permafrost could amplify global warming even further beyond our control. Sea level rise of 1 meter or more would be expected by 2100, with the possibility of destabilization of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, which would cause much more sea level rise and flooding of coastal communities.


Best and worst case scenarios

Sounds like a mass extinction event to me. When resources become scarce, humans become animals. I'm happy to break this to you... It's a world that I wouldn't want to live in and I'm sure you wouldn't either. It's certainly not a world I would want your children to live in.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The global warming scaremongering has been going on for decades,I no longer care.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Please, even a 1 M sea level rise won't extinct Mankind. Try your fear mongering on someone else. I live by the Great Lakes, It will be like the Saudi Arabia of Freshwater in the future. You can stand at the shoreline of Florida as the waters cover your head.

It won't be a world ending event for Humanity.


Btw, I have researched both sides of the argument, I know what the worst case scenarios forecast. It's still not an extinction level event for our species. Your bet on me would be one you lose.

PS Btw, Humans ARE ANIMALS. Least last time I checked.



edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

talklikeapirat
reply to post by rnaa
 





But they are still rising ...


No. No surface temperature rise for the last 12-17 years (depending on the dataset used).

If you cannot grasp this fundamental fact, any further discussion is meaningless.



What year are you living in? Lets see here... (2013 - 17 = 1996) ... (2013 - 12 = 2001). Notice how that nicely brackets the old all time high of 1998? Cherry pick your data much? Problem for you is that 1998 isn't the high point any more, 2010 and 2006 were hotter and 2013 will be hotter as well. Even with the cooling effect of the strongest La Nina events and an extended period of reduced solar output, the trend is upward.

Here is an article that summarizes the academic response to your 'temperature pause' claim:
Global warming: has the rise in temperatures 'paused'?

I think this one is one of the best:


Prof Myles Allen, head of the climate dynamics group at the University of Oxford: Comparing the expected temperature for 2013-2017 with a single exceptionally warm year (1998), as some reports have done, is just daft. 1998 was around 0.2 degrees warmer than the 1996-2000 average, largely thanks to a massive, once-a-century El Nino event. The IPCC predicted a warming of 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade due to human influence back in 2000. That means the one-off impact of that El Nino event was equivalent to about 20 years of the expected background warming trend So, unsurprisingly, 20 years later, expected temperatures have risen so that an average year is now as warm as that exceptionally hot year.

That said, a lot of people (not the IPCC) were claiming, in the run-up to the Copenhagen 2009 conference, that ‘warming was accelerating and it is all worse than we thought’. What has happened since then has demonstrated that it is foolish to extrapolate short-term climate trends. We did see unexpectedly fast warming from the mid-1990s to the early-2000s, but the IPCC, quite correctly, did not suggest this was evidence for acceleration.

While every new year brings in welcome new data to help us rule out the more extreme (good and bad) scenarios for the future, it would be equally silly to interpret what has happened since the early-2000s as evidence that the warming has stopped.


And another



Prof Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London: I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘global warming has stopped’! Global mean temperatures - whether measured or predicted - are not the issue. What matters is the energy balance of the planet and the changes that an energy imbalance will drive in the climate system - as well as the consequences for humans.

90% of the energy imbalance enters the ocean and is not visible to the global mean surface temperature value. The continuing rise in sea level demonstrates ongoing energy accumulation in the ocean (as well as a contribution from melting land ice).

Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe. We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment.


The last decade has been the hottest on record, even with those cooling events. The decade before that was the hottest on record up to that time. And the decade before that. By what definition is there no temperature rise?

I strongly recommend you read this article in its entirety: Slate - Bad Astronomy: UPDATE: Despite Doubling Down, Climate Change Article Still Very Misleading

It is rather detailed, but shows that while the surface temperature is not rising as fast as it was in the 1990's it is still rising (contrary to your assertion), energy is building up in the ocean systems but being 'masked' by the powerful Pacific Decadal Oscillation (the driver of the El Nino/La Nina effects).



But that heat is still there, building up. At the same time, the ocean surface has a natural oscillation in temperature, up and down, over timescales of a decade or more. This affects land surface temperatures on short time scales like a few years. We're in a downswing right now, which is another reason temperatures over land have flattened.

But that won't last forever. The ocean surface will warm once again, the heat inside will be released, and temperatures will go up again. It's difficult to say exactly when, but it won’t last forever.


Imagine what would have happened over the last "12 to 17 years" had the PDO not stored all that heat in the deep ocean. And imagine what will happen when the PDO allows it to come to the surface again.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


This is a follow-up to my post above.

I'm going to walk you through some actual data from the British MET.

Source here - UK Met Global surface temperature

First.

How is the global average temperature calculated?

The data are first converted into 'anomalies'. Anomalies are the difference in temperature from the 'normal' level. For HadCRUT4 the 'normal' level is the long term average for each area over 1961 to 1990.


Now what are the actual observations?



Global average temperature anomaliesYear HadCRUT4 in°C (95% confidence range) HadCRUT3 in °C (95% confidence range) NCDC in °C GISS in °C
2012 0.45 (0.35 to 0.55) 0.40 (0.30 to 0.49) 0.46 0.47
2011 0.41 (0.31 to 0.50) 0.35 ( 0.25 to 0.44) 0.41 0.46
2010 0.55 (0.46 to 0.64) 0.50 ( 0.40 to 0.59) 0.54 0.58
2009 0.49 (0.40 to 0.59) 0.44 ( 0.34 to 0.54) 0.47 0.50
2008 0.39 (0.30 to 0.48) 0.31 ( 0.21 to 0.41) 0.39 0.40
2007 0.48 (0.40 to 0.57) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.47 0.54
2006 0.50 (0.41 to 0.59) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.48 0.50
2005 0.54 (0.45 to 0.63) 0.47 ( 0.37 to 0.58) 0.53 0.57
2004 0.44 (0.35 to 0.54) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.46 0.43
2003 0.50 (0.41 to 0.60) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.56) 0.50 0.51
2002 0.49 (0.40 to 0.59) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.55) 0.49 0.53
2001 0.44 (0.35 to 0.53) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.43 0.44
2000 0.29 (0.20 to 0.38) 0.24 ( 0.14 to 0.33) 0.31 0.31
1999 0.30 (0.21 to 0.39) 0.26 ( 0.17 to 0.36) 0.33 0.31
1998 0.53 (0.44 to 0.62) 0.52 ( 0.42 to 0.61) 0.51 0.52
1997 0.39 (0.31 to 0.48) 0.36 ( 0.26 to 0.45) 0.39 0.37
1996 0.18 (0.09 to 0.27) 0.12 ( 0.03 to 0.22) 0.20 0.24
1995 0.32 (0.23 to 0.41) 0.28 ( 0.18 to 0.37) 0.33 0.34
1994 0.20 (0.12 to 0.29) 0.17 ( 0.07 to 0.26) 0.20 0.20
1993 0.14 (0.05 to 0.23) 0.10 ( 0.01 to 0.19) 0.14 0.12
1992 0.10 (0.01 to 0.19) 0.06 (-0.03 to 0.15) 0.11 0.10
1991 0.25 (0.17 to 0.34) 0.20 ( 0.11 to 0.29) 0.25 0.29
1990 0.29 (0.21 to 0.38) 0.25 ( 0.16 to 0.33) 0.27 0.30
1989 0.12 (0.04 to 0.21) 0.09 ( 0.01 to 0.18) 0.14 0.15
1988 0.20 (0.12 to 0.28) 0.16 ( 0.08 to 0.25) 0.22 0.27
1987 0.19 (0.10 to 0.27) 0.17 ( 0.08 to 0.25) 0.20 0.20


That is hard to read here, I know. The first column is the year, obviously. The second column is the HadCRUT4 anomaly, the third column the actual HadCRUT4 measured variation; fourth and fifth are the HadCRUT3 anomaly and variation, sixth column is NOAA NCDC, and seventh is the NASA GISS.

Lets just focus on HadCRUT4. The datasets disagree in detail due to different methodology, but not in trends.

In the eleven years 1987 to 1997, the anomaly started out at .19 degree above the baseline, peaked at .39 in 1997 (as the El Nino was ramping up). My eyeball estimate of the average anomaly is maybe around .23 or .24.

In 1998, during the most massive El Nino of the century, the anomaly hit .53 No nearby year was even close. Lets throw out 1998 as an extreme. 1999 and 2000 "drop back" to the similar values to 96 and 97 - a bit warmer but not extreme like 1998.

But in the 12 years from 2001 to 2012 EVERY ANOMALY IS GREATER THAN EVERY ANOMALY that occured before 1998. 2013 will be greater again.

It is simply not credible to claim that the last 12 to 17 (1996 or 2001 to 2012/2013) years have not experienced surface temperature rises. It is ludicrous on the face of it. The decade 2003 to 2012 was by far the hottest on record. The coolest year in that decade (2008) was equivalent to the hottest year in history before the 1998.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

jibajaba
reply to post by rnaa
 

I provided a couple of links - to what I am saying - would you do the same - ty

BTW - this has been a relatively cool summer in Colorado w/ from say towards the latter part of june to at least mid-july w/ clouds and overcast.

here is a chart for Boulder : History of Boulder weather



Sorry I thought I had. I have provided plenty of links in may other posts in this thread.

These are probably the most relevant to the point you seem to be making with your links:

Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

More ice than last year is still bad news for the Arctic




Big year-to-year fluctuations in sea ice are becoming commonplace in the Arctic, because recent decades of rising temperatures have thinned the ice, making it much more vulnerable to changes in the weather. Even though a layer of ice regrows each winter, it melts much more easily under the right conditions in the summer.


Arctic Death Spiral: CryoSat Reveals Decline In Arctic Sea Ice Volume Continues

Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again

I recommend this one for a good technical, but readable, analysis (hint: you can choose 'basic' or 'intermediate' science discussion):

Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?



Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is.

Sea-ice consists of first-year ice, which is thin, and older ice which has accumulated volume, called multi-year ice. Multi-year ice is very important because it makes up most of the volume of ice at the North Pole. Volume is also the important measure when it comes to climate change, because it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice*.

...

* Footnote: Although a thin layer of ice doesn’t tell us much about the overall state of ice loss at the Arctic, it does tell us a great deal about Albedo, the property of ice to reflect heat back into space. When the sea ice diminishes, more heat passes into the oceans. That heat melts the thick ice and speeds up the melting of thinner sea ice, which in turns allows more heat to accumulate in the oceans. This is an example of a positive feedback.


Is that enough links for you? I know it will take a while to digest them, but the all say the same thing: sea ice surface area is not the most important measure - sea ice volume (or mass if you prefer) is the most important measure.

By the way, local charts, for Boulder or any other locality, are not useful for studying anything other than local weather. Climate is not weather and is not local. Climate is regional and global; we are talking global climate change. Boulder is only one data point out of thousands world wide.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 












source



source

It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming.




source

The recent pause in global warming -

Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.




source

Estimates of the observed global warming for the recent 15-year period 1998-2012 vary between0.0037 C/year (NCDC) ,0.0041 C/year (HadCRUT4) and 0.008 C/year (GISS). These values are significantly lower than the average warming of 0.02 C/year observed in the previous thirty years 1970-2000. Can models explain the global warming stagnation?



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

pavil
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Please, even a 1 M sea level rise won't extinct Mankind. Try your fear mongering on someone else. I live by the Great Lakes, It will be like the Saudi Arabia of Freshwater in the future. You can stand at the shoreline of Florida as the waters cover your head.

It won't be a world ending event for Humanity.


Btw, I have researched both sides of the argument, I know what the worst case scenarios forecast. It's still not an extinction level event for our species. Your bet on me would be one you lose.

PS Btw, Humans ARE ANIMALS. Least last time I checked.



edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)


I'm not fear mongering. Is that your standard label for anyone you disagree with or for information that scares you?

And I seriously doubt you've done much research on the other side of your beliefs. You don't offer much in the way of references supporting your arguments so I can only assume that you don't have any. If you care to prove me wrong then have at it, otherwise you're just blowing hot air out your pie hole.

The extreme worst case scenario for global warming is something called "Venus Syndrome". Look it up.... then tell me it wouldn't be an ELE.

You should choose your words more carefully... makes you sound mis-informed when you don't.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

pavil

pasiphae


i'm one of the few left on this site that fully believes that humans have pushed normal climate change into hyperdrive. while climate change has always existed it's moving at a rate too fast for us to be able to adapt.


Really???? Humanity can survive an ICE AGE but we can't "adapt" to a world that is still warming up from said Ice Age? I hate to break this to you, but even with the most dire of predictions of GW, Humanity will continue to grow and thrive on this Planet.

Stop the crazy Chicken Little talk please.



an ice age that developed over a very very long period of time.... and what ice age are you talking about? the climate has changed in the history of the earth many times but NEVER BEFORE has it changed at this extreme rate with so many humans occupying so much space. "stop the crazy chicken little talk please".... sorry but that's how i see it after reviewing all the information out there. i don't feel like chicken little in the least. i think you should stop sticking your head in the sand. telling me how to think isn't going to miraculously make me go "oh.... you're right. doh!" any more than me telling you to get your head out of your rear will make you change your mind.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Blarneystoner

I'm not fear mongering. Is that your standard label for anyone you disagree with or for information that scares you?

And I seriously doubt you've done much research on the other side of your beliefs. You don't offer much in the way of references supporting your arguments so I can only assume that you don't have any. If you care to prove me wrong then have at it, otherwise you're just blowing hot air out your pie hole.

The extreme worst case scenario for global warming is something called "Venus Syndrome". Look it up.... then tell me it wouldn't be an ELE.

You should choose your words more carefully... makes you sound mis-informed when you don't.


You are fear-mongering, you implicitly imply an impending doom, what the heck do you call that?

I don't get into the "I have this Data" argument simply for the fact that no matter what I present, you will ignore it. I'm sure you have experienced it as well. It's been proven time and time again with Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it discussions here. I'm surprised you haven't started personal attacks as this is usually the path these discussions take (I'll give you a pass on the mis-informed comment). The Models used don't even work right with real world observations, let alone the cherry picking of data. And yes, BOTH side cherry pick. I will never convince you that you are wrong and I have yet to see compelling data to prove you are the right one. You keep trying, just don't make me pay more for things because of your beliefs.

You don't Fear Monger yet you bring up a "Venus Syndrome" ???? Really??? While your at it why don't you bring up the "Snowball Earth" scenario too. Jeez.

I stand by my assertion that Humanity will survive any of the IPCC worst case scenarios.

Like most of these threads, we will have to agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

pasiphae

an ice age that developed over a very very long period of time.... and what ice age are you talking about? the climate has changed in the history of the earth many times but NEVER BEFORE has it changed at this extreme rate with so many humans occupying so much space. "stop the crazy chicken little talk please".... sorry but that's how i see it after reviewing all the information out there. i don't feel like chicken little in the least. i think you should stop sticking your head in the sand. telling me how to think isn't going to miraculously make me go "oh.... you're right. doh!" any more than me telling you to get your head out of your rear will make you change your mind.


I'm not telling you how or what to think, I suggest that YOU do likewise, thank you. That's the part I don't like. What exactly is your solution to Climate Change??? I actually am VERY curious, please reply back.

Again, I stand by my assertion that Humanity will survive ANY of the IPCC worst case scenarios, in fact, we will thrive overall in the long run.

I would worry more about Biological and Nuclear Warfare more than Global Warming, but hey, that's me.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

pavil
You are fear-mongering, you implicitly imply an impending doom, what the heck do you call that?


lol... I'm not implicitly implying anything. An "extreme worst case scenario"... that's what you asked for.


I don't get into the "I have this Data" argument simply for the fact that no matter what I present, you will ignore it.


So... you're anticipating that I will ignore any references you might have to support your claims?



I'm sure you have experienced it as well. It's been proven time and time again with Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it discussions here.


Personally I don't care if anyone ignores the facts... they are what they are.


I'm surprised you haven't started personal attacks as this is usually the path these discussions take (I'll give you a pass on the mis-informed comment).


Well that's mighty gracious of you.


The Models used don't even work right with real world observations, let alone the cherry picking of data. And yes, BOTH side cherry pick. I will never convince you that you are wrong and I have yet to see compelling data to prove you are the right one. You keep trying, just don't make me pay more for things because of your beliefs.


If you claim that both sides cherry pick data then your sources are skewed ... are you saying your cliams have no foundation in reality?


You don't Fear Monger yet you bring up a "Venus Syndrome" ???? Really??? While your at it why don't you bring up the "Snowball Earth" scenario too. Jeez.


Is that not a worst case scenario? Did I claim to believe it? Did you say that humans could survive a worst case scenario? Are you eating Cheetoes?


I stand by my assertion that Humanity will survive any of the IPCC worst case scenarios.


Go get 'em Tiger...



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I think there is much needed research still left to be done and considered before running with a particular blame as to what is and has been going on with our climate since the Earths inception.

It really doesn't take a scientist to come to a conclusion that our Planet goes through changes.

Never the less there are some of us who need evidence.

It seems as there are agreements from the scientific community and even the metaphysical community that blame (for the most part) space weather for what is going on here today, in our past, and in the future.

With a Bachelors in Science (Physics and Geophysics), Susan Rennison has done her own due diligence and believes Space Weather is contributing to issues here at home. www.susanrennison.com...

The Metaphysical community has termed what is going on as a "cosmic shift".

NASA believes the same but not in those words. Again, global warming is not an accurate term to describe the complexity in regards to climate and indeed major changes going on with our planet and our Sun, especially.


Holdren said global warming is a "dangerous misnomer" for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


The Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC) is filled with different densities. Some areas we travel through are less dense and some are more dense. It matters!


Changes to precipitation patterns and sea levels are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone," the report said. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


Higher temperatures in one part of the globe while the other part experiences extreme and frigid temps cannot be considered "global warming". I may sound like a broken record but believe me when I say there is no such thing as "global warming".

From the journalofcosmology.com... we read..


The calculated values are of course averages based upon the assumption of a homogeneous distribution of protons in space outside of the heliopause. If we assume this equivalence is an intrinsic feature of space and shows a modest range in variability, then the solar system could be moving through space whose intrinsic magnetic equivalence is within the range associated with the increase in geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years.



Quantitative analyses of the increase in global temperature, carbon dioxide levels and geomagnetic activity indicate they share the same source of variance. The energy available from the enhanced geomagnetic activity which has been coupled to the expansion of the solar coronal magnetic field could accommodate the increases in global temperature for both the Earth and Mars. The author speculates, based upon inferences and general calculations as yet untested, there is an intrinsic organization in space through which the solar system moves as it orbits the center of the galaxy. Spatial quasi-periodicities in the characteristics of this submatter space, may be responsible for the coherent changes within the whole system.


The above paragraph says "May be responsible". Most scientists do have that "may" clause about them. IT MAY. lol It MAY NOT... we don't know but what we do KNOW is where we are traveling through space is having an effect here at home. No doubt!!

Now, as far as the HUMMING SOUND people have been reporting.... This guy, Elchin Khalilov, a geophysicist who works in the area of geodynamics and geotectonics is taking a shot at what MAY be the cause.

This cause he believes began in 1998!!!


In that case, what could be causing this humming in the sky?In our opinion, the source of such powerful and immense manifestation of acoustic-gravity waves must be very large-scale energy processes. These processes include powerful solar flares and huge energy flows generated by them, rushing towards Earth’s surface and destabilizing the magnetosphere, ionosphere and upper atmosphere. Thus, the effects of powerful solar flares: the impact of shock waves in the solar wind, streams of corpuscles and bursts of electromagnetic radiation are the main causes of generation of acoustic-gravitation waves following increased solar activity.Given the surge in solar activity as manifested itself in the higher number and energy of solar flares since mid-2011, we can assume that there is a high probability of impact of the substantial increase in solar activity on the generation of the unusual humming coming from the sky


He goes on to state..


But you said that the cause of the “sky hum” can lie within Earth’s core as well, what does it mean?There is one more possible cause of these sounds and it may lie at the Earth’s core. The fact is that the acceleration of the drift of the Earth’s north magnetic pole which increased more than fivefold between 1998 and 2003 and is at the same level today points to intensification of energy processes in the Earth’s core, since it is processes in the inner and outer core that form the Earth’s geomagnetic field. Meanwhile, as we have already reported, on November 15, 2011 all ATROPATENA geophysical stations which record three-dimensional variations of the Earth’s gravitational field almost simultaneously registered a powerful gravitational impulse. The stations are deployed in Istanbul, Kiev, Baku, Islamabad and Yogyakarta, with the first and last one being separated by a distance of about 10,000 km. Such a phenomenon is only possible if the source of this emanation is at the Earth’s core level. That huge energy release from the Earth’s core at the end of the last year was some kind of a start signal indicating the transition of the Earth’s internal energy into a new active phase. www.kipnews.org...

en.wikipedia.org
www.2011.geocataclysm.org...

There are major Earth changes taking place and while I know that is a big claim for someone like me to make, I do have plenty of evidence to back up these claims and also using my eyes to see and ears to hear the news and read... it makes perfect sense that these changes are taking place because of where we are traveling in our Solar System.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
When I was researching I came across this letter. I thought it was an excellent find.



In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age: Dear Mr. President: Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research. The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments. Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace. The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others: (1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected. (2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc. With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research … With best regards, George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)


So, based on this letter Eastern Europe and Central Asia would be the first affected. Here is a link to a book published in 2010 titled, "Adapting to Climate Change in Eastern Europe and Central Asia" and below is an excerpt.



This book presents an overview of what adaptation to climate change might mean for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It starts with a discussion of emerging best-practice adaptation planning around the world and a review of the latest climate projections. It then discusses possible actions to improve resilience organized around impacts on health, natural resources (water, biodiversity, and the coastal environment), the 'unbuilt' environment (agriculture and forestry), and the built environment (infrastructure and housing). The last chapter concludes with a discussion of two areas in great need of strengthening given the changing climate: disaster preparedness and hydro-meteorological services. This book has four key messages: a) contrary to popular perception, Eastern Europe and Central Asia face significant threats from climate change, with a number of the most serious risks already in evidence; b) vulnerability over the next 10 to 20 years is likely to be dominated by socioeconomic factors and legacy issues; c) even countries and sectors that stand to benefit from climate change are poorly positioned to do so; and d) the next decade offers a window of opportunity for ECA countries to make their development more resilient to climate change while reaping numerous co-benefits.


There are SOOOOO MANY FACTORS at play in this climate debate, however the fact remains that the ROOT problem cannot be "fixed". We cannot travel through any other part of space and neither can our Sun.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
OOPS... I think this is the link for the post above and this one.. www.globalresearch.ca...

Now.. Lets see what else John Holdren has to say about our climate and the causes.


New York Times science columnist John Tierney noted in 2009: In 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay [titled] “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote: The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.


And then there is cloud seeding...


The American Institute of Physics – the organization mentioned in the Boston Globe article – notes: For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with “clean” thermonuclear explosions. *** The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts. We might forestall global warming only to find we had triggered a new ice age.


Now below is the Science Story of the CENTURY! Yep... you heard it right here too. lol


The Register reported last year: What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.


So where is our Sun at? What is going on with our Sun? This is the question we need to be asking because what is going on with the Sun DOES affect us here at home!!!




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join