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.

 

Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Okay well my opinion is this, we can all agree the temps have risen ( but stopped rising which doesn't correlate to rising co2 btw), we can all agree that temps have risen BEFORE we were pumping out co2... Many times in fact has the earth heated up and cooled... SO, it is not a question of are we causing this, right? As it is clearly natural concidering it has happened before. It's a question of are we speeding it up right?

Well for that you would need to compare all the other ice ages and warm periods, and THIS ice age/warm period would need to end right? For this to be answered scientifically. Basically it can't be answered and what does it matter anyway? The heating and cooling cycles will happen with or without us as history has shown!

EDIT: Another thing to ponder, say we could stop it, the warming and cooling (the notion is ridiculous to me). Who is to say that will be good? The earth has naturally heated up and cooled in the past over and over, maybe it NEEDS to do this? Maybe it is very dangerous to stop it?

I dunno, I think the earth has been here for so long, gone through so much, we are insignificant!

We'll go through an ice age and a warm period whether you like it or not. So how about we discuss how we'll survive? We can grow food underground with led lighting! Solar above ground and crops underground. People are doing this already! It works and would negate any frosts etc. Also it is easier to control pests in such an environment.
edit on 27-4-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)


EDIT: And if it is a warm period we won't need to worry too much about crops, but still I guess crops could get damaged by extreme weather conditions... I fact thinking about it are we being a bit silly? We have vast fields of crops right around the world, what if we took those underground? Grew them with led lighting instead and powered that by solar fields! What is the betting there would be an excess of energy here?

Also you would not need gmo! And you would not need any pesticides! As long as you kept it like a clean room with controls in place to stop comtamination! So we'd have healthier food too...

You see led gives the plant only the spectrum of light that it needs! The plant doesn't use all the light the sun provides... So this is how led can grow plants with a lot less power than say hps bulbs. I'm sure we would see an energy excess, Maybe we can even work it out? Take the square meter led watts cost and minus it from the square meter potential of solar. Have the solar on tracking systems of course... This would mean you can grow in the desert too no bother!

Why are we not doing things like this?
edit on 27-4-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
www.led-grow-master.com... en.m.wikipedia.org...

Second link for some stats, if you click on solar performance it gives some m2 figures. Interestingly if we put solar to cover just 1 % of the sahara desert it would produce more energy than all the power stations in the world combined! Didn't know that... Boy how thick are we humans! Lol...

I'll look for a link now to led m2 costs and see if there is any potential excess there. I mean if there were another option would be to reduce the amount of space a farm takes up. But lets see the led figures first I guess lol

EDIT: Link for led stats is up top, when I copy paste my phone puts em there lol... Anyway, in that link it says tomatoes need 10-15 watts per square foot for veg and 40 watts for flowering... Could someone convert that to m2? My math sucks lol...

I do think there could be an excess afterall, especially during veg period. And considering the size of the fields it would be rather substantial!


edit on 27-4-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

Many Amish have made radical developments in farming methods using vertical hydroponics, as well as the space saving benefit they have decreased water usage that is typical with such yields by up to 70% less. Everyone needs to turn their house into an oxygen enriched hydroponics refinery immediately. Free food, forever.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
We all know or should know... unless you drank the kool-aid.
This thing called global warming is a hoax meant by our handlers to keep us in line and follow their plan.
The earth has been in a warming cycle for the last 14 years and now is cycling. It will now go into a cooling cycle " Maunder Minimum"
the Sun cycles every 11 years or so, hence warming and cooling.

This is NOT a great surprise except for those that do not read or listen, but just follow...sheeple
Nothing new here to those that have an IQ above room Temp.

SO, what does this mean.....
It means that for the next 130 ~ 170 years we will be in a cooling cycle.
SO the Global warming pimps will have lots of work to keep the song and dance going.
It is the communist way to carry on, it is the only thing people care about.. Climate Change.. pretty smart of the them huh?

Now go out there and drink the Kool-Aid and preach global warming like your keeper told you to…
Go on, get going!



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bellor
a reply to: Meee32

Many Amish have made radical developments in farming methods using vertical hydroponics, as well as the space saving benefit they have decreased water usage that is typical with such yields by up to 70% less. Everyone needs to turn their house into an oxygen enriched hydroponics refinery immediately. Free food, forever.


Free and Non GMO!!



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150

One scientist's opinion is close to meaningless. 95% of SCIENTIST'S believe there is enough evidence that man is affecting the planets environmental balance in an extremely negative way. The only people don't think we should pay attention to such alarming possibilities are idiotic greedy capitalists who have a financial interest in destroying our planet.
And of course the dimwits who listen to them.


edit on 27-4-2014 by fripw because: spelling correction


(post by fripw removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: fripw
a reply to: madmac5150

One scientist's opinion is close to meaningless. 95% of SCIENTIST'S believe there is enough evidence that man is affecting the planets environmental balance in an extremely negative way. The only people don't think we should pay attention to such alarming possibilities are idiotic greedy capitalists who have a financial interest in destroying our planet.
And of course the dimwits who listen to them.



Prove that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. The initial poll was rigged, it is nothing more than propaganda by the warmists. According to Al Gore (aka manbearpig) earth should have been incinerated by now.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: guohua

Anyone is free to question man made climate change all they want.

The problem is most people seem to "question" it with silly anecdotes about ships stuck in Antarctic ice or quote-mining irrelevant old men who obviously have no authority on the subject, but like to speak as if they're esteemed experts when someone gives them a soapbox.

Then ya wonder why nobody wants to play with the supposed skeptics.

I would be more than happy to have a serious conversation on the issue. I've got me a Science degree with a background in atmospheric physics, and happen to know a thing or two more than just whatever Al Gore told me about the climate changin'. I'm also a full fledged conspiracy theorist who has done some thorough homework on the denial industry (yes, there is one), and how they've been manipulating skeptics on this subject from the very beginning.

But in over 5 years on ATS I've never found a serious dance partner. I've met a lot of people who think they're willing to engage, but once the hard facts start throwing down and the real propaganda is brought to light, they ALWAYS turn tail and run back to threads like this one, where they can remain sheltered in their pre-disposed beliefs, and just continue railing on Al Gore and big gubbermint coming to take all their non-existent freedoms away.

A cartoon fight is much more fun anyway I guess. Ever consider how much (hypocritical) doom-porn there is on the skeptic side here?




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

Ya the poll was rigged and your one nasa scientist is a crack pot, so now where are we at?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: guohua

Anyone is free to question man made climate change all they want.

The problem is most people seem to "question" it with silly anecdotes about ships stuck in Antarctic ice or quote-mining irrelevant old men who obviously have no authority on the subject, but like to speak as if they're esteemed experts when someone gives them a soapbox.

Then ya wonder why nobody wants to play with the supposed skeptics.

I would be more than happy to have a serious conversation on the issue. I've got me a Science degree with a background in atmospheric physics, and happen to know a thing or two more than just whatever Al Gore told me about the climate changin'. I'm also a full fledged conspiracy theorist who has done some thorough homework on the denial industry (yes, there is one), and how they've been manipulating skeptics on this subject from the very beginning.

But in over 5 years on ATS I've never found a serious dance partner. I've met a lot of people who think they're willing to engage, but once the hard facts start throwing down and the real propaganda is brought to light, they ALWAYS turn tail and run back to threads like this one, where they can remain sheltered in their pre-disposed beliefs, and just continue railing on Al Gore and big gubbermint coming to take all their non-existent freedoms away.

A cartoon fight is much more fun anyway I guess. Ever consider how much (hypocritical) doom-porn there is on the skeptic side here?


I questioned it with this chart. It's not a silly anecdote. It's empirical data on the last 10,000 years of global temps. When you can explain how temps were much warmer when man was not industrialized, then we can start to have a conversation. Until that point, your argument is based on anecdote.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
i too was a climate change denialist because i was young, blissfully ignorant, and an alex jones listener (though mostly for entertainment). right wingers and libertarians told me al gore is a big bad man and the UN and big corporations are trying to cash in on global warming and it's all a big conspiracy. no real evidence, no looking at the big picture. just some retarded msm articles on some right wing sites that say the ice has been growing last year or we had a really cold winter this year...

and i'm not romanticizing the left either but man. i have not seen any convincing evidence that global warming is a lie.

are we even going to make it through the next century?
edit on 27-4-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: fripw
a reply to: madmac5150

One scientist's opinion is close to meaningless. 95% of SCIENTIST'S believe there is enough evidence that man is affecting the planets environmental balance in an extremely negative way. The only people don't think we should pay attention to such alarming possibilities are idiotic greedy capitalists who have a financial interest in destroying our planet.
And of course the dimwits who listen to them.



Prove that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. The initial poll was rigged, it is nothing more than propaganda by the warmists. According to Al Gore (aka manbearpig) earth should have been incinerated by now.


No-one has claimed that, not even Al Gore. The fact is, the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has been rising since records started being kept. The only debate is to whether this trend is natural or has been affected by human contributed carbon dioxide. There is absolutely no doubt that the carbon dioxide contributes to this trend, it is simply a question of determining how much. A NASA scientist is entitled to his personal opinions on the subject, but his personal interpretation of the data is no better than anyone else's. Ultimately, it is an expression of political belief.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Hi Bilk,

could you post a link to that graph so I could read more about it.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: eManym

yeah and warming of similar scale have happened repeatedly in the past over and over according to the same ice core samples used to "prove" this unproven man made warming hypothesis, so whats your point?
edit on 27-4-2014 by namehere because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2014 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Well for starters, how about the fact that chart you're posting is deliberately misused by skeptics to deceive people? The data on that graph actually stops at 1855 (95 years before 1950 - not 2000AD). This is before modern warming even started. If you include more current data it actually looks like this (note the little blue crosses):



Showing temperatures higher today than they have been in the last 10,000 years.

More info here:

www.skepticalscience.com...

Second off, it's only localized data for one part of the world, not averaged out across the globe - which makes it much more partial to wild swings & variability than you would get from a more extensive and complete data set.

Third off, using the argument that it's been warmer in the past is a total non-sequitur anyway. If you go back far enough you will certainly find temperatures warmer than today, and there are plenty of natural reasons for it. But that has no bearing on the question of whether greenhouse emissions trap heat - which underpins the whole "man made" issue. This is strictly a matter of atmospheric physics, which is well understood now through 150 years of solid science.

If you want I can show you plenty of evidence of that, but to be honest I'm not interested in wasting time with anyone who's going to be stuck on the "well it was warmer 5 million years ago - where were all the SUV's then huh?" rhetoric. If you can get past that then great, but if you can't see how this is totally immaterial and irrelevant to the conversation, it just ain't worth the effort I'm afraid.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
honestly i find people's attitude on this to be silly, i mean up until 2003 or 2004 most people and scientists looked at man made warming as the nonsense it is, then suddenly when it became profitable due to oil prices rising and the beginnings of economic trouble, everyone out of nowhere started saying the opposite, using the same evidence used to prove it wasn't man made.

if evidence points in two opposing directions then obviously someone is lying about their resulting theory.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: SonoftheSun

That graph is from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2), which is available here.

But as stated in my post above, it is completely misused, because the skeptic who plotted it - Don Easterbrook - got the dates completely wrong to make it look like it accounts for modern warming when it actually lags 150 years behind.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

I didn’t look up the guys profile but he is not a climatologist, that doesn’t negate the fact that there is a global warming trend.

Here is a chart from the last 135 years from NASA's GISS site:

NASA GISS Source

This chart clearly shows an exponential rise in temperature starting in the 1960s to current.

Here is an 1100 year chart from the NOAA Paleoclimatology site showing the global warming trend plotted with volcanic activity, solar irradiation data and other data which is most probably caused by human factors. Notice there is an exponential increase starting around 1850 to the present, which indicates a man-made factor.

NOAA Paleoclimatology website

The warming trend from 1000 to 1250 was caused by high volcanic activity and an uptrend in solar irradiation. 1850 to present shows an uptrend in solar irradiation and other factors as the cause for the warming trend.

edit on 27-4-2014 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

so let me get this, you say it was warm or even warmer in the past and repeatedly too and records prove it, yet you say man made warming is more significant than natural warming even though the rate of warming is well within the range of past warmings?

yeah greenhouse gasses exist, yeah it's warming, yeah there's too many humans and yeah pollution is bad but that still proves nothing beyond a simple correlation of events, that is not proof of anything.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join