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.
Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Thebel
It is in my opinion a natural cycle, however the imbalance of energy is whats concerning as we live here and have no other choice but to watch events unfold and try and piece the puzzles together.
There seems to be no question as to global warming. Its real!
Man is obvioisly not making things better.... Thats evident!
There is also no debate about the climate changing. We are all globally experiencing it.
What IS in question is what are the factors involved, can we change it, and what will happen next?
We know there is more carbon, so it will indeed heat up when its on the rise.
We know ice caps are melting and the jet stream is waaay off.
We know solar maximum is ramping up, however we have yet to see it in action. Because we are in a " system", what does this mean for our solar max? Time will tell.
Richard Forster, a University of Utah professor, said that water rises every year, but he have never before observed it at this level of discharge. The melting event was also about two weeks prior to the normal seasonal peak. He noticed that it was most likely due to melt on the ice sheet – rather than an ice-dammed lake bursting or glacial lake drainage – as the high discharge was maintained for so long.
Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Here is a follow up article to the Greenland ice sheet SURFACE melting, with some markedly different before and after pics from one of the main settlements there, from May this year and July:
Richard Forster, a University of Utah professor, said that water rises every year, but he have never before observed it at this level of discharge. The melting event was also about two weeks prior to the normal seasonal peak. He noticed that it was most likely due to melt on the ice sheet – rather than an ice-dammed lake bursting or glacial lake drainage – as the high discharge was maintained for so long.
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...
Originally posted by khimbar
Your thread title is wrong.
97% of the ice sheet didn't melt.
There was melting on 97% of the surface.
Way to take a number out of context though.
Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Originally posted by khimbar
Your thread title is wrong.
97% of the ice sheet didn't melt.
There was melting on 97% of the surface.
Way to take a number out of context though.
I think the word surface is clearly in the title of the thread.
Originally posted by khimbar
Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Originally posted by khimbar
Your thread title is wrong.
97% of the ice sheet didn't melt.
There was melting on 97% of the surface.
Way to take a number out of context though.
I think the word surface is clearly in the title of the thread.
No, but nice try.
Your thread title explicitly implies 97% of the 'ice sheet surface' melted in July, leading the reader to assume there is only 3% left so we can all say 'OMGZ!1! global warming'.
What actually happened is that there was melting over 97% of the surface area. That's totally different.
Your thread title should be 'Melting over 97% of Greenland's surface' not '97% of Greenland's ice sheet surface melted' when it didn't actually happen.
Originally posted by ararisq
Originally posted by nixie_nox
That has been debunked by Carnegie Mellon that found that the change in cosmic rays only affect less than 30% of particles, and then, most of those particles are not big enough to affect clouds.
Are you one of those people that discounts all evidence that doesn't support your presupposition and supports lone evidence that does?
This has not been debunked. It was released in 2009 and since then a link has been found. I won't do your home-work for you - go Google it. I doubt you'll believe it since clearly the sun doesn't play a role in the heating of the Earth and its all man-made.
bah - tired of you people...
The basic problem with the hypothesis is that solar variations probably change new particle formation rates by less than 30 percent in the atmosphere. Also, these particles are extremely small and need to grow before they can affect clouds. Most do not survive to do so," Adams said.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Originally posted by VoidHawk
That depends who's science your using.
Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I don't always believe scientists over the common man, but in this case I think science trumps ignorance.
Are you aware of the THIRTY THOUSAND scientists who all said global warming is a deception?
Really?? Which scientists?
Are you aware that the the atmosphere used to have MANY times more co2 than it does now?
Really? How much is "Many"?
If you are going to try to debunk scientific data, try to sound more scientific.
And this is a simple way of looking at CO2.
The CO2 that is registered is an isotope, there are several of them. The CO2 burned from fossibl fuels is a different isotope than those in the atmosphere.
So when the CO2 from fossil fuels is mixed with atmosphereic CO2, the composition of the atmospheric CO2 is changed. Hence, how they know the carbon is from burning fossil fuels.
In tree ring records and ice core samples, never has the atmospheric Co2 been so low in thousands and thousands of years, And the rise of fossil fuel CO2 isotope has risen in the last....150, or the start of the industrial revolution.And change of atmospheric CO2 isotope has never been more than .03%, five times less than what we have seen in the past 150 years.
I am glad we could clear that up.
I think that is the concern for most scientists.
Are you aware of how the planet WILL respond if it warms too much?
Google the above and do some research rather than believe what they feed you.
If you don't even understand the CO2 your discussing, your the one who needs to do research.edit on 25-7-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)