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 Kryties
There is clear evidence of a 1500 (+/- 500) year cycle of warming and cooling. The very fact that the Earth warms and cools, creating climate change in various parts, detracts from your claim that this is a modern-day phenomena.
Example 1:
From National Centre for Policy Analysis
Human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend, according to a study published by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). In fact, S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia) and Dennis Avery (Hudson Institute) conclude that global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a think tank. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'" -- NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations
Funny that, a right wing think tank funded by oil, energy and automotive interests.SOURCE WATCH
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment
Procter & Gamble Fund
Dude, read the above. They are getting these ice cores and seeing natural cycles of cooling and warming from atmospheric samples inbeded in the ice over thousands of years. The ICE they are getting this from is dissapearing. How do you compare ICE that traps atmospheric conditions to conditions that will deteriorate the ice to the point where the cycle will not continue, that is what is happening. Read the reports i have linked in the OP.
* An ice core from the Antarctic's Vostok Glacier -- at the other end of the world from Greenland -- showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
* The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
* Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.
The Hudson Institute is a think tank headquartered in Washington D.C.
Hudson Institute discussion presents significant evidence challenging warming alarmism
Ag Processing Inc
American Crop Protection Association
American Cyanamid
CropLife International
DowElanco
DuPont
Eli Lilly and Company
Exxon Mobil
General Electric Fund
Monsanto
National Agricultural Chemical Association
Novartis
PayPal
PhRMA
Procter & Gamble
Sunkist Growers
Syngenta Crop Protection
United Agri Products
The heat trends over the last ^) years caused by Man are not moderate changes, as evident in my OP. If this peroid was to be captured in this cysle you love talking about it would be considered an anomaly when compared to previous warming trends. This think tank is using historical trends to explain GW without adresssing Gas emmisions and observed warming in conjunction with Gas emission increases.
Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, an agricultural economist not unprecedented.
Additionally, scientific analysis of ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic found that there is a clear record of a moderate, abrupt 1500-year climate change cycle running all the way through all the major warmings and all the ice ages. Cores taken from the seabed of six oceans, including the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arabian Sea have also revealed the same unmistakable 1500-year cycle.
Avery and Singer, a professor emeritus of environmental research at the University of Virginia and the former first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, have concluded that the alarmist predictions about how much the earth will warm in the near future are based on a radical overestimate of how much carbon dioxide changes the earth's temperatures.
Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming, the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion[14], and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, Frontiers of Freedom, the Marshall Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which Singer founded.
All you have is people spinning Ice Core Data that say the earth warms moderately every1500 years, we are not seeing this
A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change.
Show that then, show that the vast majority of science is being funded to present a spin on the science to fit the political or economical agenda of those Funding the science. Show that for my sources like I have with Yours. GO On.
Originally posted by Kryties
The fact is that the same could be said for the sources provided refuting my claims. That they are politically biased.
[edit on 4/9/2008 by Kryties]
Originally posted by atlasastro
Dude, read the above. They are getting these ice cores and seeing natural cycles of cooling and warming from atmospheric samples inbeded in the ice over thousands of years. The ICE they are getting this from is dissapearing. How do you compare ICE that traps atmospheric conditions to conditions that will deteriorate the ice to the point where the cycle will not continue, that is what is happening.
Cores taken from the seabed of six oceans, including the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arabian Sea have also revealed the same unmistakable 1500-year cycle.
The heat trends over the last ^) years caused by Man are not moderate changes, as evident in my OP. If this peroid was to be captured in this cysle you love talking about it would be considered an anomaly when compared to previous warming trends.
Originally posted by Kryties
In response to your post pertaining to the IPCC, here is an interesting article...
From www.sciencealert.com.au...
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
Originally posted by Kryties
While you may have a point about the ice samples, the seabed sedimentary samples cannot be refuted.
This is the Third major shelf break up this year. This year has seen the second year in a row that historical amounts of Summer melts have occurred. These are not isolated events.
Originally posted by Venit
I think we need to be careful of viewing single events as part of a grander scheme of warming, for example weather events, or this ice shelf break up. However, from the amount of research done, and the findings of the IPCC, then in my humble opinion, it is also dangerous to act as if human activity were not the catalyst for climate change.
If we don't stop the increasing carbon emissions, then there's a real danger that we won't be around for much longer.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Firts of All, the Quotes i took are from an IPCC report, but the Science they USE is a reference and resource for the report and is founded and peer reviewed and accepted.
Your opinion piece that you present does not criticise these resources or reference but the peer review process of the Report. This does nothing to discredit the Science of the report, or the quotes i have Used.
Once again though you fail to use or present science
and in its place we have another lobbyist spinning doubt and innuendo. The Author of your Opinion piece also worked in think tanks and the other author was a computer analyst.
written by Mr Gumby , July 10, 2008
Often in these type of opionion pieces, the comments rapidly go down the path of
a. Opinion by someone (typically a climate "skeptic", typically on the UN/IPCC)
b. Comment by a critic of the opinion piece on the motives, qualification and/or ideology of the opinion stater
c. Response from those who agree with the opinion stater that to question the motives, qualification and/or ideology of the opinion stater is nothing but a personal attack, that the motives etc are irrelevant, etc.
d. Depending on the opion piece the critic will often reply that given that the original piece questioned the motives, qualification and/or ideology of the UN/IPCC etc, that such comment is valid.
With that base and to avoid confusion, can I ask if the Tom Harris of this piece the same Tom Harris who is/was executive director of the "Natural Resources Stewardship Project" and a global warming skeptic/denier/contrarian and who was until September 2006, the Ottawa operations director of the High Park Group, a public relations and lobbying firm active in the debate over global warming, whose clients include the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association, and which has been accused of being an "astroturfing" organisation set up by High Park Group to promote the interests of its clients?
written by Tom Harris , July 11, 2008
Answers to Mr. Gumby's questions:
1 - I, Tom Harris, was the Executive Director of "Natural Resources Stewardship Project" until the end of February 2008.
2 - I have never been "a global warming skeptic/denier/contrarian". Climate always changes and always will. At times it warms and at times it cools. It never stays the same.
3 - Until September 2006 (from May 2006 to September 2006, a long career indeed), I was the Ottawa operations director of the High Park Group. Despite HPG's other activities, I was never a lobbyist or involved in lobbying. You will have to ask HPG about what their other staff do or did as I can only speak for myself. I do know however that HPG clients include solar and wind companies as well as biofuels, not that it makes any difference to me.
Do you have anything of substance about the piece to ask, or comment, about?
Tom
Originally posted by atlasastro
Its 2 am here in OZ, i need some Global Sleepage,
Originally posted by atlasastro
Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada
news.aol.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada
By CHARMAINE NORONHA, AP
posted: 12 HOURS 2 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: SCIENCE NEWS, WORLD NEWSPrintShareText SizeAAA
TORONTO (Sept. 3) - A chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier, scientists said Wednesday.
Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, told The Associated Press that the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf separated in early August and the 19-square-mile shelf is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean.
Related News Links:
www.reuters.com
www.physorg.com
www.esa.int
Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Even The Antarctic Winter Cannot Protect Wilkins Ice Shelf
Originally posted by greysave
Ok since we are causing the ice caps to melt, could you tell me why they weren't there millions of years ago?