Global Warming Has Ended

Hi There,

The problem with the term 'global warming' is that it suggests that the planet as a whole is warming up everywhere, at the same time. This is not a true picture. What we have are warming and cooling patches occurring around the planet as the natural systems seek to disperse and balance out the extra energy in the atmosphere trapped by the so-called greenhouse gases.

The earth of course creates natural greenhouse emissions, but our own activities over the last 200 plus years has added to the density of the gases, helping to trap more of the heat from the sun as a surplus supply of energy, on top of that that the earth's natural emissions would trap.

What this means is that the extra energy in the form of heat is dispersed along the normal dispersal pathways from the equator, and reaches further north and south. It is in these regions where the gases collect more densely due to the centrifugal action of the earth and weather and ocean systems. In the polar regions we would expect to see temperature increases, but more enlightening is what we can observe happening to the ice in these regions...they are on a march of withdrawl...they are melting and dumping large quantities of 'fresh' water into the sea. If it continues in increasing rates, all that extra fresh water might trigger a scenario similar to the film 'The Day After Tomorrow' where a desalination occurs...whether or not this shuts down the gulf stream currents is anyone's guess.

The more ice that melts, the less there is to reflect the sun's heat back out into space, which means more and more heat being trapped, and the more ice melt at increasing rates. It would, I suppose, depend upon where the earth is in its orbit, with greater effects being reached at closest pass with the sun. As the earth passes closest point and starts to move further away from the sun in its orbit, this might give the natural dispersal systems time to deal with all the extra energy...but this might depend upon our own ability to deliver less and less greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere...if we did this, the earth would balance everything out eventually...currently the forecast is that man is going to increase emissions rather than reduce them.

Personally, I think this is irresponsible. It is not just about the warming issue, but about the toxification of the very land we all live upon, and the oceans from which we get our water. We're poisoning ourselves...and we just don't seem to give a damn! Perhaps the earth would be better off without our presence?

P.S.
We also have to consider the weakening of the ozone layer that protects life forms from the unltraviolet rays. We know that our activities have weakend it...creating large holes to appear. This is other direct evidence of how we are able to affect natural systems upon which we depend for...life.

Best wishes

[edit on 31/1/07 by elysiumfire]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
The majority of the world's climatologists and meteorlogists have already acknowledge global warming is real and the current scientific debate has moved on to if global warming is anthropologically caused and can we do anything about it.

Majority means nothing, and in this case its the "consensus trance", where everyone agrees somethings true only because everyone else does.. Most people agreed the earth was flat once...need i say anymore?

That's a perfect, illustrative example, ironically.

Every educated person even in the middle ages was aware that the Earth was approximately spherical, due to scientific observations in the enlightened period of Greek Antiquity. Any notion of being flat was a myth propagated only amongst the ignorant anti-scientific masses.

The originally quoted statement is not actually correct. Here is a more correct restatement of the status of the international scientific community (of which I am one):

More than just a broad majority, but virtually all of the world's climatologists and meteorlogists already acknowledge current global warming is real, AND that its cause, though not exclusively anthropogenic, is significantly dominated causally and quantitatively by human activities, and the consequences of these are likely to rapidly get worse in the near future. The current scientific debate has moved on to quantifying the various processes to see how bad it will get in various circumstnaces, understanding the more localized consequences in the future, and seeing if there is anything we can do about it.

Science today is no different than it was yesterday, as is our understanding of everything, which is being continously reviewed and updated.

The fact this so called "warming" has happened over a relatively short period of time means you can't rely on these conclusions drawn up by so called "experts". We know relatively little about how climate works on a global scale, and the interaction between the Sun and Earth, and also the forces that effect the Sun, which in turn effects us.

This is just plain a lie. The fact that the warming (it is not 'so called' it is actually that) has happened over a relatively short period of time quite precisely rules out many other potential physical mechanisms other than anthropogenic greenhouse gas alterations of the atmosphere.

Because we know the laws of physics, contrary to the statement, we really do know quite a bit how climate works on a global scale and enough of the interaction between the Sun and the Earth. Dedicated scientists have been studying this for many decades, combined with extensive physical and biological observation programs. This not like string theory. This is more like the unanimous agreement among chemists that chemical compounds are made out of atoms which occur on the periodic table. There are uncertainties but the uncertainties are not as large as people think.

Interior properties of the Sun are not as well known, however the influence of the Sun on the Earth has been measured in quantitative detail over a sufficiently long amount of time that we can upper bound its influence on the climate. In any case the effect of the Sun in NO WAY removes the causal impact of changes of greenhouse gases upon upper atmospheric infrared emissivity due to greenhouse gases. It just adds to it if the Sun's luminosity is increasing.

The one thing that demonstrates to me there is more going on than just Greenhouse gases is that Tectonic activity is also increasing both in magnitude and frequency, its not just the weather thats changing.

What experimental evidence for this is there, and what is the causality and even if it were true, in what way does it invalidate everything else that we know about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming?

IMHO the changes we are seeing are "earth changes", and the global warming idea is merely a scheme to make money and at the same time hide the fact that the Earth itself is undergoing change, aswell as the entire solar system.

Evidence? We are seeing "earth changes"---that which have been measured by experimental geophysical science community. And what they believe is in the IPCC reports (which are actually very conservative).

Who is going to make money out of a "scheme" which somehow has been magically perpetrated by hundreds of thousands of people over decades? Being a scientist is definitely definitely NOT a way to make money.

On the other hand, if you are a socially irresponsible fossil fuel company then sowing bogus doubts into scientifically ignorant laymen's heads and money into sleazy politician's pocketbooks does seem like pretty good investment to make sure you keep on making lots and lots and lots of money.

Hi There,

quote: IMHO the changes we are seeing are "earth changes", and the global warming idea is merely a scheme to make money and at the same time hide the fact that the Earth itself is undergoing change, aswell as the entire solar system.

In what way is the entire solar system changing...and how do you know this, by what criteria against what criteria?

Earth changes? Warming trends? Periodicity? What exactly do you mean with your broad word-strokes?

Earth changes do occur daily. We have volcanic activity, tectonic activity, weather systems, ocean systems, lunar influence, all dynamics that occur daily and quite naturally without any input from man. Never in its established paleo-climatological history has the earth ever experienced sudden increase in temperature without a specific sudden cause, such as cometary impact, massive volcanic activity such as a calderea eruptions, and so on.
Ice core analysis enables us to trace back as far as 600 thousand years, and yet, it is only in the last 200 years that we see definite temperature increase, synchronizing quite well with mans industrial rise. We are quite capable of tipping the fragile balance of the eco-systems, and have done so on numerous occasions

I percieve you arguing from pride rather than good science, or perhaps you hold a more nefarious agenda?

To those who believe that the theory of Global Cooling is bunk because of it being a short-term trend, you need to have a geology lesson before you cite 1860 as a baseline year.

The earth is billions of years old and therefore to use a period of 150 years as a benchmark for global temperature trends is frivolous.

Secondly, Greenhouse Gases can make a planet hotter, just look at Venus. The only difference is that Venus does not have the abundance of ice that we have. With the rapid ice melting that some scientists claim, the transfer of heat in the oceans would balance out yielding lower temperatures.

Thirdly to blame the environment changes on man's emissions is bunk as well. The farmers of centuries past have had live stock releasing methane and more pollutant factories than we ever would run today. Changes in the environment are long term changes and not ones that humans can do so very quickly, unless in the case of small ecosystems.

The environmentalists of today are POed that their endangered species of the 1970's and 80's are coming back and that they have nothing to be yelling about anymore. Its like how governments eventually loosen Sin taxes because if the penalties were too high, no one would break the law and pay the fines.

IMO, the entire solar system is warming, the sun entered a cycle of some kind. I don't think the humans have a huge part in it, but anyway, I'm against the pollution of earth and air, because even if the earth is warmed, how the hell are we gonna live with no pure air, no pure earth, no pure water and no animals? Even if we cut our CO2 emissions, global warming will not stop.

Are we in the prosess of a polar shift right now? I would think that would cause these climate changes as well...I mean north becomes south,winter becomes summer,.etc...and this is suppose to take thousands of years maybe? I would think we would have life threatening natural disasters during this period.I would agree that mankind is contributing to the climate change,however earth is not the only planet experiencing global temperature changes...all the planets in our solar system are experiencing this at the same time.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
Are we in the prosess of a polar shift right now? I would think that would cause these climate changes as well...I mean north becomes south,winter becomes summer,.etc...and this is suppose to take thousands of years maybe? I would think we would have life threatening natural disasters during this period.I would agree that mankind is contributing to the climate change,however earth is not the only planet experiencing global temperature changes...all the planets in our solar system are experiencing this at the same time.

The polar shift you're referring to is in relation to the magnetic poles only. It will make your compass needle point south instead of north. This will take anywhere from a few years to a few hundered years to occur. The mangnetic polar shift by itself will not have any major effect on climate or weather unless it's accompanied by major volcanic or seismic activity.

[edit on 2/1/2007 by darkbluesky]

Thirdly to blame the environment changes on man's emissions is bunk as well. The farmers of centuries past have had live stock releasing methane and more pollutant factories than we ever would run today. Changes in the environment are long term changes and not ones that humans can do so very quickly, unless in the case of small ecosystems.

This is completely untrue, and unscientific wishful thinking. We have MEASURED the changes in greenhouse gases and the exact consequences in terms of infrared re-memission in upper atmosphere due to humans. This is experimental fact, not theory!

There were many fewer farmers of past centuries and the total number of livestock releasing methane were smaller because the population was much much smaller.

There is a natural rate, due to biology that CO2 and greenhouse gases can get taken out of the atmosphere and put back into the ground. But thanks to current human activity we are significantly exceeding this rate of natural sequestration. So in centuries past there was a natural equilibrium approximately where human influences could be countered by natural backward feedbacks. These feedbacks are now being very significantly exceeded, and there appear also to be natural feedforwards which could make things even worse by amplifying human induced global warming.

Most importantly humans were, back then, releasing many, many, many, fewer greenhouse gases which had been previously buried deep for geological time. Since CO2 has a natural residence time of hundreds to thousands of years, we are seeing now the accumulation of past centuries of greenhouse gases. Not only are we accumulating, but the rate that we are accumulating is continuing to increase. I.e the amount emitted PER YEAR is going up every year---so that the total amount in the atmosphere is going up even faster and that's what matters. Given also that there is a time delay between the time of emission and maximum potency of the greenhouse effect (not sure the time but it is decades to century?) we are just barely starting to see the effects from the 19th century and 20th century industrializations. Given all these there is very good reason to conclude, based on highly validated laws of physics backed by massive experimental and observational projects, that things will quickly start to get worse at a rapidly increasing rate.

Since the basic theory was essentially well in place by late 80's or so we can see how the observations since then in 15 to 20 years have played out---and they have indeed validated our understanding of the laws of physics and our understanding of the atmosphere.

Statistics of the past are irrelevant for prediction, except how to calibrate our laws of physics. It is THAT knowledge, not past climate observations directly, which motivate the anthropogenic global warming consensus. Really, thousands of scientists all over the world are NOT going to make something up when it is as deadly serious as this.

The purpose of ATS is "deny ignorance". It is very important to do so---people's emotional ideas that "humans can't have that big an effect" or a suspicion of "consensus" as some conspiracy theory are just plain wrong here.

Every single possible argument that the unscientific debunkers think they cleverly think up has been well considered by climate scientists years and decades ago and have been investigated experimentally.

Please, everybody, deny ignorance read www.realclimate.org. This is an extremely important global issue and I am upset and dismayed by the arrogant dismissals and misunderstanding.

Go to the index on that site, there are real, scientific answers to almost all reasonable questions.

Originally posted by Indy
This is a story I wrote for my website. I thought it was worth sharing here.

"Yes you read right. Global warming has ended. Why would I make a claim like that when the main stream media is running with every story under the sun talking about how global warming is real? To me it is simple and I will explain why.

Global temperatures cover exactly that. They cover the globe. That means there is no reset. Temps on Jan 1 don't start out at average and then drift up or down. Global temperatures slowly adjust one direction or another and the yearly deviation is a way of tracking change. So if you are +1 degree in 2005 and +1.1 degrees in 2006 it doesn't mean that you've tacked on another 1.1 the following year. It means that for that 12 month period the global temperatures trended .1 degree higher. To even state this probably sounds stupid. But you are so used to hearing how we had the 5th warmest year on record or the 6th warmest year on record or whatever. It makes it look like we've stacked up the numbers from scratch over and over.

Here is where you have to stop and think about the numbers and understand where they are going. 1998 was the warmest year on record. I don't think many would dispute that. 2005 was the 5th warmest year on record. 2006 was the 6th year on record. What does that mean? That means since 1998 the global temperatures have been trending downward. Advertising that 2006 was the 6th warmest and that global warming is real makes for good press but it is very misleading. The report could have very well said that evidence suggests that global warming has reversed course. The reality is that over the past 8 years the global temperatures have been trending downward. That is a fact the numbers support.

If you look over the climate records you will see that following every great temperature spike there an equally impressive temperature crash. I think 1998 was the end of the great temperature spike and we've started our downward trend. I believe the instability in the ocean currents has triggered this change. Because the temperatures are trending down doesn't mean that the ice will stop melting. I think in many areas the ice will continue to melt which will supply more fresh water to an already unstable North Atlantic. This will only accelerate the downward temperature trend.

Make no mistake. We are headed into what is at best another little ice age. "

I disagree!

Did you notice, that the weather is going crazy? In Europe our last summertimes are hotter than normal, our winters are no winters anymore, they're to warm...more like spring. Flowers and animals are behaving like it's springtime.

And what about that hurricaneseasos in the US (not talking about the 2006 season...was below average)? Even we in Europe had at least one hurricane.

We also had several tornados here. That's not normal for Europe.

Even the "scientists" are not denying global warming anymore.


Reuters link
CNN link to Hurricane Kyrill


Sorry, but in my opinion this sounds more like disinfo

edit: fixed links


[edit on 1-2-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]

NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence
By Chuck Schoffner
Associated Press
posted: 27 October 2004
12:53 pm ET


IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.

Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.

I find it funny that Bush has been putting the censor police on information about global warming
www.space.com...


[edit on 2-2-2007 by asala]

but Global warming and Global cooling are two halves of a sphere when global warming occurs temperatures get higher causing ice to melt and the ice the cools the ocean currents causing dramatic decreases in temperatures.
But also Global warming/Cooling never ends its a repeating cycle, but the thing is this time it's worse due to the affect of mankind on the earth atmosphere. The chemicals and other toxins we release are causing faster breakdowns in the atmosphere, breakdowns which naturally occur very slowly, but in this case they are not able to repair as they normally would because we are still putting more and more toxins into the air. At this rate by best estimates are that in January of 2012 the polar icecaps will have been melted enough to cause a global mcooling trend unlike any before, killing of most of the animals in the oceans because of rapid temperature drops.:

Cool Cash For Global Warming

Originally posted by mbkennel
On the other hand, if you are a socially irresponsible fossil fuel company then sowing bogus doubts into scientifically ignorant laymen's heads and money into sleazy politician's pocketbooks does seem like pretty good investment to make sure you keep on making lots and lots and lots of money.

Of course, it probably would be unwise to assume that retooling all the industries of the world and their equipment would happen magically without someone profiting by manufacturing and selling the new "green technology", don't you think?

I find it rather startling how often the example of "greedy oil companies" is given ad nauseam without even so much of a suggestion that there are plenty of non-oil-selling multinational corporations who stand to make trillions off Global Warming.

Hint: ALL corporations are greedy. They're supposed to make money. If they don't, they die.

Could it be possible that maybe, just maybe, they might have an interesting in promoting Global Warming as a way to make money by selling new equipment mandated by law?

Nawwww, only oil companies would do something like that, right?

Science is just politics with bigger words.

Originally posted by Majic
Could it be possible that maybe, just maybe, they might have an interesting in promoting Global Warming as a way to make money by selling new equipment mandated by law?

Science is just politics with bigger words.

Our current age of unregulated predatory capitalism and rampant exploitation of the lower classes is far cry from any type of boon for humanity, and that's regardless of what kind of candy coating they want to package it in.

The current package is war for oil and US taxpayers are still buying it for $500+ billion:
Shell breaks UK record with £12.9bn profit Scotsman
Exxon Profits Soar: $40 Billion Quarter, $180 Million Per Day National Ledger
Predatory Capitalism, Corruption and Militarism: What Lies Ahead in An Age of Neocon Rule?

Science is a tool, that can either aid society or destroy it.

So welcome to Operation Squirrel, where he who hoards the most laughs last.

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by Majic
Could it be possible that maybe, just maybe, they might have an interesting in promoting Global Warming as a way to make money by selling new equipment mandated by law?

Science is just politics with bigger words.

Our current age of unregulated predatory capitalism and rampant exploitation of the lower classes is far cry from any type of boon for humanity, and that's regardless of what kind of candy coating they want to package it in.

The current package is war for oil and US taxpayers are still buying it for $500+ billion:
Shell breaks UK record with £12.9bn profit Scotsman
Exxon Profits Soar: $40 Billion Quarter, $180 Million Per Day National Ledger
Predatory Capitalism, Corruption and Militarism: What Lies Ahead in An Age of Neocon Rule?

Science is a tool, that can either aid society or destroy it.

So welcome to Operation Squirrel, where he who hoards the most laughs last.

Take an economics lesson, Profits are at record highs, not profit margin. The cost of expansion and exploration in the oil industry makes it so that the profits are only 7% over investment. Coke, Pharmaseuticals and numerous other industries post higher profit margins than oil companies. Not to mention, the price per oil is not so much determined by the oil companies but the demand by the consumer and the supply by OPEC countries, which lately have been nationalizing privately held property by the Oil Companies.

Where are those headlines?

Blinded By Science

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Science is a tool, that can either aid society or destroy it.

It can also function as a religion for those too dishonest with themselves to realize it.

The God of Science is a jealous and wrathful god which can be summoned to smite any who would dare question the infallibility of its worshipers.

In the case of Global Warming, it is routinely used as an appeal to authority intended to circumvent rational discussion and silence dissent.

The way to the truth is not through logical fallacies, and the fact that they abound in both "pro-Global-Warming" and "anti-Global-Warming" camps tells me that truth has little to do with any of this -- and compels me to position myself as far from either extreme as possible (and usually avoid the discussion altogether).

Personally, I'm "agnostic" about Global Warming. I don't claim to know one way or the other, which subjects me to vicious and unwarranted assaults in exchange for my honesty. :shk:

What I do know is that the "Global Warming Controversy" is one of the biggest propaganda wars I've ever witnessed, and God help us all if it is the threat it's made out to be, because so far I haven't seen a single credible solution for the "problem" offered by anyone. Indeed, if we are to believe the more alarming predictions, it's already too late and there's nothing anyone can do that will save humanity from utter ruin. So why even bother?

Ironically, though I'm unimpressed by the scaremongering, opportunism, irrationality and mendacity which characterize the "debate" (i.e., "shouting match") and am quite convinced that all this represents more of a struggle between power elites than meaningful scientific inquiry, I'm hoping the ultimate outcome will be cleaner and more environmentally sound technologies worldwide, because -- Global Warming or not -- I strongly believe we could use a lot more of that.

As for the "Truth About Global Warming", assuming it even matters at this point, I'm sure we'll know in a century or two.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Take an economics lesson, Profits are at record highs, not profit margin.

Huh, what are you talking about? Low profit margins do not dismiss predatory capitalism, nor does comparing crooks to crooks. You seem to forget about how much is redistributed to shareholders and employees too. Supply and demand my ass, given enough cash, even I can bid up the price of oil, hide my assets, make up losses, give myself an enormous salary, and stick it to the end users.

I'll let you take those lessons.

Oil Cheats

Supply and demand still rule. The larger demand for oil especially in the rapidly growing economies of China and India, as well as numerous military conflicts in the oil producing nations have nothing to do with the spike in oil prices? Please, take a break from your government funded schooling and MSNBC, and look at the numbers. Per Capita, the price of oil is no where near where is should be, plus if anything oil prices have been plummeting in the US over the past two months.

Lastly, if you want to bitch about oil prices and how these companies are robbing you, stop giving them money. Either move to an area that has mass transit, buy a Geo (Beer can on wheels) or stop taking your car for sunday drives. Oil in the US is no where near what the Europeans pay for it, even with our outrageous gas taxes in the US.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Take an economics lesson

Perhaps you should do the same….in addition to a course on honesty.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Profits are at record highs, not profit margin.

Big deal.

Why do you think that nonsensical point overcomes the fact that Exxon just posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company?

The record net income amounted to roughly $4.5 million an hour for the world's largest publicly traded oil company, which produces about 3 percent of the world's oil.

That compares to about $12 an hour for the average U.S. worker, according to the Labor Department.

Link.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
The cost of expansion and exploration in the oil industry makes it so that the profits are only 7% over investment.

Again, big deal.

At least with regard to Exxon, (we’ll see how ConocoPhillips and Chevron do shortly), they report a 10% profit margin for 2006.

Our profit margin for 2006 was about 10 percent. We keep a dime on every dollar of revenue," said Ken Cohen, the company's vice president of public affairs.

Link.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
…numerous other industries post higher profit margins than oil companies.

Numerous? Let's put that into perspective.

The graph below shows a profit margin series for large U.S. companies since 1955. It was built by creating monthly portfolios of the 500 largest companies ranked by revenue, summing their sales and net income, and then using the totals to calculate a series of net margins.

img48.imageshack.us..." border=0>

The profit margins of large U.S. companies have ranged between roughly 5.5 percent and 7.5 percent through most of the period shown. During the mid 50's and early 60's companies enjoyed healthy profitability spurred by strong economic growth. From their peak in 1965, margins generally declined through 1983. During the 1990's they climbed back to their previous highs of 7.5 percent (although a chunk of those earnings would evaporate over the next few years after they were found to be fraudulent). Following the earnings plunge of 2001-2002, the recent economic rebound has put net income at about 8.5 percent of revenues, a 50-year record.

Profit Margins, Earnings Growth, and Stock Returns

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Not to mention, the price per oil is not so much determined by the oil companies but the demand by the consumer and the supply by OPEC countries,

Now, I should cry because oil companies are subject to the laws of supply and demand like ALL OTHER BUSINESS?

Even OPEC’s power is constrained by the laws of business. If OPEC increases oil prices through an artificial restriction in supply, as you suggest, it naturally impacts demand and even creates a strong incentive for alternatives.

I doubt they take that risk lightly.

As you later suggest:

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Either move to an area that has mass transit, buy a Geo (Beer can on wheels) or stop taking your car for sunday drives.

That’s something they’d really be afraid of.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by Majic
As for the "Truth About Global Warming", assuming it even matters at this point, I'm sure we'll know in a century or two.

Based on the early indications of the IPCC's release tomorrow, it may be far less time than that.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Please, take a break from your government funded schooling and MSNBC, and look at the numbers. Per Capita, the price of oil is no where near where is should be, plus if anything oil prices have been plummeting in the US over the past two months.

Predatory capitalism is the issue here, so go make up a story about someone else, since you really have no clue who I am.

I really don't need your illusionary free market sheeple lessons, so you can keep your supply and demand Keynesian kookery and worry about your own finances. My interest is in consulting those who don't know enough on how to avoid getting manipulated, and that's not by making excuses for more usury and enslavement.

Meanwhile, Take your epic 2 month technical analyses, load up crude puts and see how laissez faire it is.