The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

Originally posted by rizla
I have placed a complaint about this thread being linked to an image on the home page. While it is sadly fine to author poorly researched threads on ATS, advertizing them can do nothing for the reputation of the board.

Your complaint is being reviewed however, looking at the research and my personal research into this phenomenon for a few years now, I can only conclude that your demand is based primarily on the fact that this research could prove threatening to your politcal agenda. I know many were thinking it so I might as well say it.

My personal opinion is that the fact that a global or galaxial warming trend likely has other catalyst rather than the burning of carbon based fuels, it does not alleviate the real reasons to move away from using it. I know many global warming fans are smothering as research unturns new revelations such as this but we need to concentrate on truth rather than blind allegience to an uneducated political cause.

There is another way to look at all of this ...

There is such a thing as fate.
Here is how it works.

Imagine the universe or even the galaxy is a dog ... and we the earth are but a flea.
Can we control the direction of the dog ... hardly.
But we can cause him to itch ... we can make our presence known.

So our fate is essentially linked to the dog even though we as fleas can cause the dog to pause mommentarily for a scratch.

Here else is how fate works ... everything is happening just the way it should be unfolding.

Why?

Because unknown to the puny flea this dog is being taken for a walk by his owner God.
And God washes his Dog on a regular basis to deal with the fleas that he sees as a nuisance. The red welts all over dog are usually an indication the fleas have returned to irritate God's best friend, Dog.

To the fleas this pattern of hopping and roaming about Dog unencumbered always meets with the same fate ... the deluge.

But the cycle continues neverending because a few nit wits always survive to lead another race of fleas bringing pestilence to God's Dog once again.

All creative kidding aside ... here is the profound thought ... if we are catching a ride on a moving object ... the earth ... which itself is dictated to take a certain path around the sun which is itself perhaps part of a binary star system ...

The point I am trying to express is on a deep profound level we have no more control over the earth than we do when seated in a plane or the back seat of a car ... at those times we have subscribed to a higher power. But realize now it is important to acknowledge that every step of your existence somebody or something (the motion of the earth) is in the driver's seat. Always there exists a force that has control over the wheel called fate. So this is fate.
Fate are the events planned that we have NO control over, fate is what keeps science busy unlocking the secrets, uncovering our eventual fate... can we make the galaxy turn right or left, stop, go up or down and in 4 billion years merge with the galaxy Andromeda and not collide with it?

So hang on ... everything is unfolding evidently as it was meant to ... the events taking place, take place because it is part of a larger, unfolding picture and our roles ALWAYS fulfill the larger picture, I feel this, but I am in good company, so do many indigenous faiths.
Why is it difficult to comprehend that the script ... the direction, path or orbit that the Dog is on is beyond our control? What if all we can can control is the frequency of the washes, the cleansings by God?

We can only make Dog itch and make him aware of our presence, nothing else, except of course breed.

Profoundly the behaviours of a collective humanity and the path we find ourselves on are indeed linked to the Dog who is leashed to a God.
That is why prophecy exists, it is based on patterns of behaviour and even God has a habit of taking Dog on the same walks.

namaste

Raphael





[edit on 29-9-2006 by Kachina]

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by rizla
I have placed a complaint about this thread being linked to an image on the home page. While it is sadly fine to author poorly researched threads on ATS, advertizing them can do nothing for the reputation of the board.

Your complaint is being reviewed however, looking at the research and my personal research into this phenomenon for a few years now, I can only conclude that your demand is based primarily on the fact that this research could prove threatening to your politcal agenda. I know many were thinking it so I might as well say it.

rizla, give it a rest. I think we understand your position.

However, astrocreep, what nonsense is this political agenda jab? Do you think the same could not be asserted in the opposite direction?

Forgive me if I am not thoroughly persuaded by your view of the research, including that of your "own" undisclosed personal material.

Originally posted by astrocreep
My personal opinion is that the fact that a global or galaxial warming trend likely has other catalyst rather than the burning of carbon based fuels, it does not alleviate the real reasons to move away from using it.

There are so many things wrong with this sentence, I'll just simply re-quote it.

Originally posted by astrocreep
I know many global warming fans are smothering as research unturns new revelations such as this but we need to concentrate on truth rather than blind allegience to an uneducated political cause.

Yet, you've determined the "truth" by summarily dismissing the vast majority of the science that leans in a direction opposed to the feeble and loose unscientific associations found in your position?

Uh huh....right.

Gee, I sure am glad you cleared up that pesky global warming issue for everyone.

Thanks for the hard science.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
[
Gee, I sure am glad you cleared up that pesky global warming issue for everyone.

Thanks for the hard science.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by loam]

Not at all. Glad to be of service.

Edit: Hey sorry for the short reply but I had to get into a conference call right at the moment I had began to answer you. At one time on this board, I posted over and over on these global warming threads the information that I draw from to form my OPINION. I have since moved through several computers and failed to have all come with me each time so I am a little at a loss but with some time, I could get it. Doing a search for my post on the subject might help.

The hard science to which you refer is actually just that, hard science. The hard science and also the very first sentence in most geo-science text books is that Earth is a dynamic planet. Has been from the beginning and likely will be til the end. Dynamic planet means also a dynamic climate and the hard science says that the Earth's climate is ever changing so the ideology of "preserving" any part of Earth is foolhardy.

The political agenda I refer to that you sort of poo pooed away with a wave of your superior knowledge is ever present and that you would choose to deny that speaks for itself, I have no reply. Members will think for themselves.


My point isn't that I have the know it all answer to the global warming question. My point is that you don't either. That for all the points that can be construed in favor of it, there are equal points that contradict it and I realize thats a double edge sword. I guess my point is that from working of the geoscience related field for a few years and doing my pathetic research on this I have formed an opinion and an opinion only and that opinion is that there are likley other variables that have much more of an effect upon earth's climate than the release of CO2.

To me, the biggest obstacle is decyphering the BS and to be honest, there is ample BS on each side of the political spectrum. Its because I now see each of the major parties with equal hatred that I feel I can detach and try to find the actual truth. I don't care who uses it as a weapon. I hate rich oil tycoons and I hate cry-baby activist that find a cause to feel self righteous. I want to know the truth fo it, plain and simple so I don't study propaghanda nor do I rely upon a flawed model. Someone once said "It is what it is". He is right. No doubt we are seeing some bad localized affects of burning CO2 but its a stretch to attribute our climate's changes to it at this point. Thats my opinion and I may likely be the only to which it is important.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by astrocreep]

I cant help but wonder if there are more seasons than just the four we are used to.
It's proven that earth has gone through periods of very hot and very cold.
With the limited amount of time that we have been recording seasons and temperatures,it seems to me that we may be getting clues about a much bigger "season" than we have seen before.
Wheels within wheels.

Yes , there may be some very long cycles, as long as the 150 million years between recent(over the last 1 billion years) glacial epochs like the one we are in now.

Don't worry about global warming. Worry about the return of the ice age, which should occur in 15,000 years. Pray that the human population has dropped by then, or there will be a final global war.

Very interesting. I must say this concept has never occured to me. I'm a strong disbeliever in global warming being caused by us but I've always used arguments relating to earth and nothing beyond it. This will give me something to talk about.

Here are some links to help you show the sceptics :

150 million year graph

We are in a protracted cooling cycle even if you only take in the last 65 million years, which is a drop in the bucket of the Earth's 5 billion year past :

65 million year graph

This protracted cooling cycle is not normal even though it's been in place for 55 million years or so. A climate akin to Florida would be normal for Ohio! Were it not for the cool-down.
















[edit on 10/1/2006 by bodebliss]

I wonder what all the people, who keep claiming global warming is being caused mainly by CO2 emissions from human activities, have to say about the latest data from the "hockey-stick graph"....



above image can be found at.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

Environmentalists, and all those people who keep claiming that mankind is the cause for global warming this time around...for some reason only give graphs with data up to the year 2000.... not to mention the inconsistencies which were found in the data from the hockey-stick, for example during the Medieval warming period, which has been proven to have had higher temperatures than the graph produced by Mann purpoted...

i wonder why....


[edit on 1-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Muaddib,
Is this the temps only for Midgetville? I think the Global warming thing covers the temps from the whole world. Or maybe I misunderstood something...

No, you are right, that data covers one station in the U.S. There are several stations. That graph is for the milledgeville station. Some stations in the U.S. show the same as that graph, temperatures decreasing, while others show higher temps.

Have you asked why there are such anomalies? and why is it that the hockey stick graphs presented by Mann did not show the Medieval warming period, which has been correlated in other research to have been a lot warmer than Mann's graph shows?

Why is it that the warmest years for the past 7 years are in order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004?

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Shouldn't the warmest temperatures be in places like California, Mexico, etc, etc? The main cities in the world where more CO2, and other gases and chemicals are being released into the atmosphere and the oceans.


[edit on 1-10-2006 by Muaddib]

For a long time now i've been skeptical of the current "true" causes of global warming. I'm always skeptical of things that take on political overtones, especially those that give power to a group of unelected individuals. Enviromentalists push their cause in a know-it-all, holier-than-thou manner. What they say and advocate takes on religious overtones; so much so, that if you don't agree 100% with their views, you almost get labeled a heretic.

I agree. Once someone centers either a political agenda or grant money on a theory, I fear we see scientific research become a religious crusade. What sort of frightens me is that the research into Earth's past is important to understanding the climatic cycle and the squelching of this because it may or may not jive with what a politcal position. The trump card, of course is that whether we, the human race, can comphrehend it or not, the cycles will continue. The only question for us is; do we regress or progress as a society?... which means actually very little in the whole scheme of things.

Its one thing to try and undermine the economy when it seems a world away or when we drive fuel efficient cars or live close enough to bike to work. Its easy to make the choice for someone else to affect their lifestyle when it affects us very little. Its that egocentric attitude that now cannot understand why coffee at starbucks is twice what it used to cost. These decisions affect the economy in its entirely and I'm fine with it because I'm close to being self-sufficient where I live but I think most of society will be hurt by it and it will likely have little affect upon the climate.

The funding and resources need to be put toward science and learning how mankind can survive these changes rather than the legal and political arena. We need to stop pretending that we can control our environemtn and begin to think about adapting to it.

I couldn't agree any more with you astrocreep. People need to understand that the climate of the Earth is dynamic and there is no way for mankind to stop climate change. Yes, there will be changes, and we need to work together to adapt to those changes.

I would have voted you for wats if I could.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Apparently from another set of information revolving science and what the Bible also says is that the Stars also determine weather. Yes stars in space that give out radiation not only the Sun but also other stars too. Maybe this global warming thing in the Solar system is not tuned to just us and this post kind of adds more proof to all this. Other stars also have energy out puts that affects us here. This will mean I am not going deep into this conversation and hoping others may know of this too a little.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by The time lord]

[edit on 2-10-2006 by The time lord]

Well the way I see it is that the debate never really happened at all. No one really looked at the big picture objectively. Back in the mid 1980s is when the drumbeat began: reports, articles, research papers, documentaries, etc. Then the whole Hollywood crowd jumped onto the bangwagon. They even had a prime-time TV special with scores of actors and a group of children wringing their hands about the state of Mother Earth (played by Bette Midler). After that, politics got involved. Power could then be gained and used by championing the environmental cause. In fact, a political party (The Green Party, started in Europe) was built around the idea that humanity was destroying the world and they were going to stop it.

Now it's too late to discuss this topic. Most scientists are afraid to publicly question the conclusions about global warming for fear of being black-listed (the same goes for UFOs). The only people talking about it are conservative radio talk show hosts and a few courageous Calhoun-type people.

Originally posted by Arctaurus26usNow it's too late to discuss this topic. Most scientists are afraid to publicly question the conclusions about global warming for fear of being black-listed.

And thus with a religion. Global warming has become the religion of those who benefit from it. Its a religion because they accept it on faith and will hear no arguments against. They will seek to get any detracting arguments squelched regardless of the importance to the scientific community.

Originally posted by astrocreep

The funding and resources need to be put toward science and learning how mankind can survive these changes rather than the legal and political arena. We need to stop pretending that we can control our environemtn and begin to think about adapting to it.

I agree wholeheartedly. But I also do think we have contaminated our environment in ways that impact not just our own health, but that of other species.

Even so, as you say (and as I've said before too )...

The funding and resources need to be put toward science and learning how mankind can survive these changes.


.

Actually, the astrophysicists also think that the solar system is warning up because the Sun is on its way to becoming a nova...Of course, we still have a few million years or so before our "solar biozone" moves past us. After the biozone has moved past us, we'll be dead anyway; I suggest we clean the place up & pay the rent before we move out or the LandLord may get angry...If we don't move out by the time the biozone moves out, we'll still be "in the building" when the utilities company turns on the heat just in time for summer (In short, we'll roast to death if we live long enough to see it happen).
What I mean by the solar biozone is this: there is an area surrounding the sun in which the balance of solar radiation & atmospheric attenuation produces a certain "orbital distance" at which a planet may support life. The planets inside the biozone are too hot to support life & the planets outside the biozone are too cold to support life. In our solar system, only the Earth falls within that narrow biozone.
As the Sun expands, it produces more radiation that all the planets catch with their surfaces and/or atmospheres (such as they may be). While it expands, the solar biozone moves further & further out toward the edge of the solar system. It may be possible that, as the sun's expansion takes millions of years, perhaps the asteriod belt or Jupiter may evolve life...But considering the lack of atmosphere (on the asteriods) & the massive gravity/crushing atmospheric pressure (Jupiter) such is highly unlikely.

Astrophysicists theorize further that, when our Sun has fully expanded during its nova stage, it'll engulf all four of the inner planets (yeah, right out to the orbit of Mars)! Then the Sun will collapse into a dead rock; Not a Black Hole because it doesn't have enough mass to compact itself that much.
A good source I've found is Steven Hawking's Universe for a lot of general info about the universe, as it has been observed & figured out (and the current theories are always changing or being replaced by newer theories).

Certainly the Earth's climate has undergone many, many drastic changes over the aeons long before humans were industrially inclined. The planet survived them all. It only matters now because we have some selfish interest as humans, huh?

Paleoclimatology confirms that meaningful changes took place over hundreds of years at the minimum, usually much longer, so touting computer models that take into account a few decades of data at best is standing on thin ice. Meaningful and accurate weather data which goes into projecting a climate model have been obtainable for a very few years. Can we truly know the maximum temperature in the Gobi in 1922? If there was a chap there he had a mercury bulb thermometer and there's no confirming the alleged temperature actually was the highest. 10 kilometers away it could have been hotter.

That same example can be extrapolated for percipitation, minumum temps and all the rest of the various weather-related measurements that go into predicting climate. To arrive at averages we have to have extremes above and below. That goes for global temperatures or the size of apples from the harvest.

When the National Weather Service can accurately predict simply the high and low temperatures in a givien city within 5 degrees without error for 30 days then I might give some creedance to the Chicken Little BS. If they can't tell you what the weather will be accurately in Des Moines, IA next Tuesday why should you believe that they know it'll be 6 degrees warmer in Centralia, IL 50 years from now. Think about it.