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.
REALITY CHECK - EXTREME WEATHER IS THE ISSUE!
“Before looking at the proven failure of the Man-made CO2 Climate Change proposition we need a reality check on why the
world is arguing about whether or not small changes in a trace gas (CO2) are making even MEASURABLE changes in world
temperature. The ONLY reason is that it was claimed that these changes if they exist might lead to DANGEROUS weather
events. Extreme weather is the problem to be tackled and we at WeatherAction predict extreme weather events weeks
and months ahead - with proven peer-reviewed skill - using SOLAR ACTIVITY – nothing to do with CO2. Yet the UN IPCC,
Governments, Met Office and warmist media BBC, New York Times etc consistently refuse to acknowledge or report our
warnings. They prefer the public to suffer and even die than admit their deluded CO2 theory has failed every objective
scientific test and can predict nothing. They have a political agenda which is the enemy of evidence-based science
“No flock of warmist sheep,
however deluded, selfimportant, or supposedly
large, can in the end
overcome a single tiger of
evidence-based science.”
"This UN IPCC 5th report and the build-up to it is a carefully choreographed self-referencing political
PR game which contains nothing of substance and regurgitates old ‘cherry picked’ discredited data
and is constructed to conceal the core scientific fact:
“All scientific tests and examination show there is NO ACTUAL OBSERVED
EVIDENCE for man-made CO2 Climate Change in the real atmosphere and sea in the
real world and ONLY EVIDENCE AGAINST. The warmist CO2 ‘theory’ is disproved.
Source of pic thanks to Lou Mackenzie
This is www.weatheraction.com...
Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans are, at least in part, responsible. The concern is that the warming of our climate will greatly affect its habitability for many species, including humans. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concur that this is the case. But some argue that this thinking is too limited. They say that too many scientists are either ignoring, or don’t understand, the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future—in either direction.
Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily found in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One of the best known examples of such an event is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named after the arctic wildflower found in northern European sediments. This event began and ended rather abruptly, and for its entire 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. Could something like this happen again? It sure could, and because the changes can happen all within one decade—we might not even see it coming......
Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).
Dr. Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist
Frontier Centre: We are all familiar with the modern theory that the world’s climate is getting warmer. Is it?
Tim Ball: Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.
FC: Could you summarize the evidence that suggests the world is cooling slightly, not warming up?
TB: Yes, since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record. When you look at rural stations – if you look at the Antarctic, for example – the South Pole shows cooling since 1957 and the satellite data which has been up since 1978 shows a slight cooling trend as well.
FC: If the world were warming up, would that be good or bad for Canada?
TB: It would be good, because even Environment Canada acknowledges that you would have better agricultural conditions, a longer frost-free season. Some people express concern about it being drier, particularly on the Prairies but the evidence says that droughts are not related to temperature. They are related to sun-spot cycles – solar cycles. So, over all it would be better for Canada and it would also reduce, by the way, the amount of fossil fuels you burn because you wouldn’t have to heat homes to the extent that we do.
Wrabbit2000
I think you may be on to something and down this path lay a real and viable reason to lie at the levels they have been. Global warming? We'd survive as a species with most members still alive to talk about it. Just move inland. Higher ground. Simulations of a 60 METER sea rise don't show mass death across the world, unless it happened in less than a day, all at once.
A mini-Ice age? What would society do if they knew it was coming, knew it could not be stopped..only mitigated and it was within our lifetimes?
That would, for many, lead to such total disrespect for any measure of authority in a "Why does it matter??" way (heard that before, huh?) that we may as well just throw in the towel and die now, even if it were decades away. The police state to control the anarchy of desperate hopelessness wouldn't be a world I'd much want to raise my son in.
It would be .....plenty of reason to hide every hint of it, IMO. Who knows.....?
Yes. Surviving a Mini Ice age would not be a problem. We'll just have to re-evaluate our food production methods.
Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Slevinq
Yes. Surviving a Mini Ice age would not be a problem. We'll just have to re-evaluate our food production methods.
I'd disagree with ya on that one. Severely disagree. As a trucker having spent a good % of my career in produce and food of one form or another? Our food production is in terrible shape ...without weather making it even worse. California produce fields are a fraction of what they had been a few years ago by deliberate rerouting of water. Nature did the job across the "Breadbasket" with drought for the same result in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and others. They're recovering and the Ethanol fuel over food corn seems to make it...but that figures. We can all be well traveled, green, starving people.
The last mini-ice age saw a fraction of the population and a population that knew how to grow. How long does one have to be?
2 growing seasons has our overall global surplus and stockpiles empty.
4 growing seasons of dramatically reduced production by frozen ground across traditional growing areas has dead and dying ...just like the last one historically had.
Technology not only won't help us...it makes it MUCH worse because no one today knows HOW to save themselves except "Google it!".
Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Slevinq
I'm thinking hard....and I can't disagree. As part of my trip to Disneyworld in 2010 we took their little behind the scenes tour for some extra hassle to see the Hydroponics and other growing tech showcased within one of the areas of Epcot. I do recall the very simple..almost childish set up they had there. It looked funny....until they explained how many harvests they get during a calendar year and just what yield they pull for comparable acreage of conventional farming.
You're absolutely right in saying technology, if fully applied as if our lives depended on it, could revolutionize food production without a single lab experiment in GMO's, and beyond anyone's wildest dreams...at least as I saw and now understand it.
The problem is...who will kick off this technology? I'd see 'TPTB' setting that sort of thing up in their own food production centers ...but never large scale availability to the general public beyond a 'see how it works? Now go figure out the details to recreate it yourself...'. If we could, we'd all have a bedroom producing enough food in that one space to supply fresh greens to ourselves and a fair part of the neighborhood around us.edit on 30-9-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Slevinq
No disagreements after all. I think we're on the same page...my bad for not seeing that sooner.
I am curious on a specific point. Where did you come up with 24 billion as a sustainable number, using effective and not predatory technology?
I don't dismiss it. Not at all. I know the number is far above what we have now, if survival of all was actually a priority to anyone ..but I'd love a number that high backed by anything solid. There are more than a couple debates at school I'd run circles in if I just had a figure like that, sourced well enough for a college environment to accept as a start.
FlyInTheOintment
Fascinating thread - interesting and polite discourse which seems to navigate through a series of conspiracy issues in one fell swoop. The 'energy/agriculture' question is surely the one that leaves the most bitter taste, when contemplating how much Humanity has been screwed over by those in control.
Ice Age or no, I sense that the recent shenanigans concerning the 'warning to the world's governments' is a steaming pile of BS. Surely they can't distract us with climate change forever? The most important thing for our society is a new means of powering it. Energy and agriculture start the ball rolling, and relative utopia would follow.
fenian8
reply to post by Slevinq
this was discussed a couple of months back
www.abovetopsecret.com...
As i pointed out on that we are still at the end of the last ice age (supposedly), this is why things are warming up a bit at the moment.
www.bbc.co.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...
And as i posted on that thread I was taught this at school.
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.