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.

 

ATS Poll: How concerned are you about "Global Warming"?

page: 13
55
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

It seems you either misunderstood the temperature graph, or that you ignored its implications.

Because, basically, your post implies that Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is always right, no matter what the evidences say.

That AGW theorists are always right, regardless if

-Global warming has occurred repetitively thousands if not millions of years ago, well before the existence of industries. According to AGW theorists, a conspiracy shifted the cause (BTW unknown, only theorized) of climate change away from the forces of nature and unto the shoulders of Mankind exclusively. The very fact that we do not have enough data to understand the complete and complex mechanism behind climate changes in the first place seem to be conveniently ignored by AGW theorists, because in their universe, theories takes precedence over facts.

-Geological records are showing that instead of a hockey stick figure, global climate is following a near-cyclical pattern of warm/cool periods, meaning the warming is always followed by a cooling, or, in other words, glacial ages and interglacials. But according to AGW theorists, this historical fact is to conveniently be ignored, since it violates AGW's beliefs.

-Temperatures around the World follow complex patterns - some area cooling, some other warming. But according to AGW theorists, the warming is global in nature (that is, the cooling areas must be overlooked), and it predicts eventual major cooling as part of global warming; and finds no contradictions in this statement.

-With the advent of satellite (more accurate) measurements, global mean temperature has decreased for a period of over 16 years, halting a trend which ground-based thermometers (though less accurate) defined as warming.

-Climate is one of the most chaotic and complex phenomenon encountered by science. Attempts to predict chaos has only resulted in statistical approximations, and "predictions" which has to be revised continually because they fall short of observations. But to avoid this little problem which we scientists call "chaotic systems", AGW theorists claim with 100% certitude that the Earth is on an imminent apocalyptic warming - but also that if the Earth was to cool down, this was predicted by AGW; and finds no contradictions in this statement.

-The scientific method states that no theory is ever considered certain. Yet, according to AGW theorists, this aspect of the scientific method does not apply to the AGW theory.


I do agree that we, as a human race, do have a responsibility towards our environment and other life-forms. Fundings in alternative energy should be a priority. We should install laws to prevent corporations from destroying wild forests. We should invest more in protecting species instead of hunting them down. We should stop making our cities un-breathable. We should stop polluting the atmosphere, the biosphere, all the spheres.

But what I don't agree with is the truly scientific nature of the heavily political tool which AGW theory has become. We just don't know, but this doesn't prevent politicians to bend "science" in their advantage.

That being said, not because we are not convicted of a crime means we can go ahead and make the said crime. Even though I am a skeptic about AGW theory (as any true scientists should be), I nevertheless strongly support respect for our environment and its inhabiting life forms. We have no ethical rights, as humans who "know better", to pollute and damage the ecosystem.



edit on 15-5-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I agree with that statement somewhat, though I believe it to be part of Earth's natural cycle. The Earth is massive... you have weather patterns in some parts of the world that you never see in others. Trying to chart a "global temperature" is an exercise in idiocy.

I live in the fear mongerer's ground zero, Alaska. Every year I see local reports of ice that lasts longer into the season and forms earlier in the season... We see thicker and thicker sea ice formation every single year. Then, like clocklwork, summer comes along and pushes that ice back close to its normal summer boundaries and some asshat in the lower 48 posts a "sea ice receeding at record rate" scary boogeyman article and the folks far, far away from us run around flapping their wings over it. FACT: the sea ice is receeding at a record rate only because it is forming at a record rate every fall. There has been an annual gain in sea ice every year for nearly a decade, but as with anything cyclic, it happens in a sinusoidal nature. Grow, contract, grow, contract, with the summer ice boundary ending up a bit closer to land every fall.

Between eyewitnessing reality and my engineering knowledge of the heat trapping capacity of concrete and steel (combined with the fact that weather stations that were once located in fields and lesser developed ares are now surrounded by concrete as urban sprawl has filled in the once-existing buffers between cities and the airports/ports that official temperature stations are usually located at) I don't believe temperatures have actually risen. The perception is there and it is the hope of the agenda driven profiteers and zero growth globalists that people will only focus on the perception and not dig any deeper than that... and hell, it seems like, for the majority, it's working well. Lotta folks must really feel that inate human need to constantly be self depreciating and self loathing in response to a manufactured fear stimulus. Of course that's seen with a lot of issues unrelated to AGW, it explains the public going along with the TSA, illegal intrusions on public privacy, Real ID, etc. Humans love to blame themselves and punish themselves for everything because arrogance dictates that humans must clearly be at the center and in control of everything.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
Also "globalist conspiracy" is like the poorest argument. How come neither the US, Russia or China never accepted to back the conspiracy?
.


Uh, Russia and China are poor pegs to hang any globalist argument on. Neither country gives two drops what the rest of the world thinks, nor do they particularly care about anything other than maximizing their own nation's profits. The US is a nation in flux... we're unfortunately slowly transitioning to a world first, nation second, individual self last model similar to that of the EU and majority UN models. Eventually the US will fall and, baring a needed revolution to right the ship, the country will become just another bitch for the global ideologues.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Because, basically, your post implies that Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is always right, no matter what the evidences say.




This is absolutely untrue. I posted many times that the only certain thing was that the temperature are rising and that denying the warming is a lie.

Your attempt at manipulating what I said are quite dishonest. Anyone can check my previous posts for themselves.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
I posted many times that the only certain thing was that the temperature are rising


Rising... relative to when?

Because it's been more than 16 years now that this is no longer true.

You might say that it rose relative to the 1950s, but then I could say it dropped relative to the 40s, and so on until we reach glacial and interglacial periods, and then even further until we reach Jurassic period, and then so on until we reach Earth's formation.


edit on 15-5-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

Yeah and you've got to love when the US are all like "we need more energetic independence" (good idea) and the people here are like "there is a conspiracy to go for renewable energies!!! we can keep using oil and gas!!!"



The level of cognitive dissonance is astoundishing.


Ever hear of coal? Ever hear of the Keystone pipeline? Why in the blue hell would anyone except for those with an agenda to push block the utilization of abundant, very efficient coal and natural gas in an effort to build more inefficient eyesores like windfarms and solar generators which actually do raise the ground temperature in their immediate vicinity?

We have enough coal in the US to run the country for the next 200 years... instead we're selling the stuff to China for pennies on the dollar because every attempt to build new clean coal fire plants in the US gets blocked by this nation's globalist lackey in charge.


Just go to China to see the effect of coal use on their country. Maybe you should travel more. I've been there many times and it's not pretty.

If you want to go the same route as them it's your choice.

Also good luck putting coal in your cars, lol.


And about gas, the new sources require mainly fracking, just ask the people living close to fracking site how they feel about it. How they can't drink water anymore because it's completely poisoned.

There are always consequences to our choices, you think we can ignore them, you will have to face the truth.


Your only argument against windfarm is "eyesore"? You got to be kidding. Coal plants are pretty now? Come on
Try harder
edit on 15-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
I posted many times that the only certain thing was that the temperature are rising


Rising... relative to when?

Because it's been more than 16 years now that this is no longer true.


Lol, one post you said warming is normal and part of a cycle and the next you ask what warming?

You are too funny, just contradicting for the sake of it, but incapable of any coherence.
edit on 15-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I am not all that concerned for my own life as I am 45 and do not think it is going to effect the world greatly in my remaining time. I do however feel I should do what I can to help ensure humanity continues on after me. I think if we ignore it and do not at least spend money researching and finding out what is going on we could be responsible for letting humanity die out due to negligence. I am not for carbon taxes etc... but I do think we need to pay attention to it, study it and make plans and come up with ideas for fixing it just in case it gets way out of hand.

We should be careful till we know for sure if we are causing it. I think those who have no clue but yell its crazy to think we cause it are going to be very sorry if they are wrong. If not them maybe their children. We just don't know so better to be careful.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
We have enough coal in the US to run the country for the next 200 years... instead we're selling the stuff to China for pennies on the dollar because every attempt to build new clean coal fire plants in the US gets blocked by this nation's globalist lackey in charge.

This is inaccurate. The following figures are from 2012. We have an estimated 481,385 million short tons of recoverable coal in the U.S., and consumed 889.2 million short tons. Simple math gives us 541 years, if we halted all exports and the estimates are correct.

However, coal only makes up about 18% of our energy consumption. To run the country, as you wrote, on coal - that would take 4,940 million short tons, annually. This works out to less than around 98 years. We actually used to use a lot more of a percentage of our energy in coal; natural gas has replaced a lot of coal consumption for energy.


originally posted by: burdman30ott6
FACT: the sea ice is receeding at a record rate only because it is forming at a record rate every fall. There has been an annual gain in sea ice every year for nearly a decade, but as with anything cyclic, it happens in a sinusoidal nature. Grow, contract, grow, contract, with the summer ice boundary ending up a bit closer to land every fall.
...
Between eyewitnessing reality and my engineering knowledge of the heat trapping capacity of concrete and steel (combined with the fact that weather stations that were once located in fields and lesser developed ares are now surrounded by concrete as urban sprawl has filled in the once-existing buffers between cities and the airports/ports that official temperature stations are usually located at) I don't believe temperatures have actually risen...

You're wrong about sea ice. Arctic maximums and minimums have been trending downwards:


Antarctic maximums and minimums have been trending upwards, but at a slower pace:


Because of this, the combined opposing maximum/minimum has been trending downwards (JJA and DJF are peak months):



These are temperature readings from satellite (RSS TLT), where the much-crowed-about pause originates:

These readings use microwave sounders; these aren't all that accurate and are subject to a great many limitations. Yet, the following are the readings from (supposedly culled) NOAA ground weather stations (and also total solar irradiance, not making another chart):


For the most part, they agree that temperature is trending upwards. It's only recently that they've started to disagree.

From your experience and background, if you agree that heat island effect from mankind is real and can impact measurements from weather stations - that local climate change is possible - then why do you feel it not possible for that impact to spread out? Things don't happen in a vacuum.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
You are too funny, just contradicting for the sake of it, but incapable of any coherence.


You're resorting to the Ad Hominem argument.


edit on 15-5-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
Just go to China to see the effect of coal use on their country. Maybe you should travel more. I've been there many times and it's not pretty.

If you want to go the same route as them it's your choice.

Also good luck putting coal in your cars, lol.


China didn't start building coal plants with efficiency equal to (or better) then old US coal power plants, until mid 2003.

As for cars, it would be easier (and cheaper and greener) to derive vehicle type fuels via coal liquefaction than it is to derive vehicle type fuels from corn.

Doesn't disrupt the food supply either.

Edit for incorrect date.
edit on 15-5-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
You are too funny, just contradicting for the sake of it, but incapable of any coherence.


You're resorting to the Ad Hominem argument.



It's still true though.

You arguments are incoherent. Sorry if you fail to see that.


Warming cycles are normal!

What warming now?

Lol
edit on 15-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
Just go to China to see the effect of coal use on their country. Maybe you should travel more. I've been there many times and it's not pretty.



If you want to go the same route as them it's your choice.


China doesn't utilize any degree of clean coal policies. The United States does. Your argument is self-destructive, in fact. More clean coal usage in the USA would equal less coal sold to and used by China, which would greatly reduce the impact burning coal has on their asthetic qualities. Unfortunately, the current adminsitration has rejected the idea of almost total carbon sequestration methods, instead opting to portray all coal as evil and take steps to block the actual construction of CCS equipped new coal fire plants in the US.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Somewhat concerned about the climate changing, and yes I believe it is.

I DO NOT believe it is man made and we didn't cause it nor can we change it. No matter how many laws you pass or how much money you throw at it.

Climate change is a natural cycle that has happened many times before through earths history, is happening now and will happen many times in the future.

The earth goes through changes & the solar cycle changes. Always has, always will.

People didn't cause it nor can we change it. I believe some people are very arrogant to believe you can change a cycle that happens within our galaxy.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
Just go to China to see the effect of coal use on their country. Maybe you should travel more. I've been there many times and it's not pretty.



If you want to go the same route as them it's your choice.


China doesn't utilize any degree of clean coal policies. The United States does. Your argument is self-destructive, in fact. More clean coal usage in the USA would equal less coal sold to and used by China, which would greatly reduce the impact burning coal has on their asthetic qualities. Unfortunately, the current adminsitration has rejected the idea of almost total carbon sequestration methods, instead opting to portray all coal as evil and take steps to block the actual construction of CCS equipped new coal fire plants in the US.


What about fracking and how do you plan to run cars? How is it more cost efficient than electric cars?

Also Alaska is highly dependent on fossil fuels for its economy, how can you be unbiased on the subject, I'm basically advocating for less jobs in your state.

How could you agree with me on this? You can't. You could even be working for the fossil fuel industry. Do you?
edit on 15-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
where are the rising oceans???

what countries have been inundated by these rising oceans????....coral islands don't count...they come and go naturally..

in Sydney harbour is a place called Fort Dennison and they have been measuring the harbour level since the late 1800's..

one inch difference....between the lowest and highest measurement in over 100yrs....and this one inch variation is considered a norm inline with the varying air pressure when measurements are taken...

here in Australia the ocean levels are not rising...just hot summers and cool winters which is the norm....

so why all the fuss and fear???



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

The Keystone pipeline didn't involve fracking. It would have been sourced from oil wells in the north which draw off natural gas as a byproduct of the crude. No fracking required. Blocking that pipeline actually increases the fracking in the lower 48.

The 25MW clean coal plant in Healy, AK



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
What about fracking and how do you plan to run cars? How is it more cost efficient than electric cars?



Also Alaska is highly dependent on fossil fuels for its economy, how can you be unbiased on the subject, I'm basically advocating for less jobs in your state.



How could you agree with me on this? You can't. You could even be working for the fossil fuel industry. Do you?


1. How do you create the electricity to run those cars?
2/3. Bad call. I'm not a big oil company guy. I'm one of the folks who campaigned for signatures to get this: ballotpedia.org... on the ballot. I absolutely don't work in the fossil fuel industry. ETA: Sorry, I cannot link directly because of formatting. Please click on Ballot Measure 1 if you're interested in researching what I'm talking about.
edit on 15-5-2014 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

The Keystone pipeline didn't involve fracking. It would have been sourced from oil wells in the north which draw off natural gas as a byproduct of the crude. No fracking required. Blocking that pipeline actually increases the fracking in the lower 48.

The 25MW clean coal plant in Healy, AK




I'm not talking specifically but globally. Like this thread is about global climate.

A majority of the new gas sources require fracking and fracking poisons local waters.
edit on 15-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
What about fracking and how do you plan to run cars? How is it more cost efficient than electric cars?



Also Alaska is highly dependent on fossil fuels for its economy, how can you be unbiased on the subject, I'm basically advocating for less jobs in your state.



How could you agree with me on this? You can't. You could even be working for the fossil fuel industry. Do you?


1. How do you create the electricity to run those cars?



Renewable energies. And excess nuclear energies (there's an excess output during night, that energy is lost and could be used).
edit on 15-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)







 
55
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join