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.

 

Rubio says he doesnt believe scientist. Let us stake the very survival of humanity on his uneducated

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
10,000 years ago there were ice glaciers in NYC. Who are you going to blame for the warmup that melted those and caused the glaciers to disappear? Can't blame man can you, maybe you'll blame bison farts huh?




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

Well if you want a real example of the effects of carbon dioxide and heat exchange look at the planets Mercury and Venus which is actually the scientific genesis of "global warming" prior to examining the impact here on Earth; or Al Gore and all the rest..



Wow...talk about being misinformed... First of all Venus is a lot closer to the Sun than Earth is. Second, Venus atmosphere is much denser than Earth's, and although it's atmosphere consists of 96% carbon dioxide, Earth's Co2 levels would never reach that level because of man's activities... Right now CO2 in Earth's atmosphere consists of about 0.038-0.040%...

Then there is the fact that if CO2 really causes such "massive temperature increases" then why hasn't it already done so?



If CO2 was really the cause of such massive warming, we should have been by now with temperatures much higher than they were during the Medieval and Roman Warming periods, yet it is not so.

Global temperatures are not even close to what they were during other warmer periods such as the Medieval Warming, and the Roman Warming periods which were much hotter than it is today, and with a relatively lower concentration of CO2 on the atmosphere which was about 260-280ppm or so compared to the 380-400ppm that exists now.




originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
...
The Earth is subject to the exact same scientific principles
...


wow... It is certainly not... This is nothing more than scaremongering from misinformed people who don't know how else to try to scare people into believing their hogwash...

If what you were saying was true, then the Earth should have been undergoing "runaway global warming" dozens of times over, yet it hasn't...

Earth's CO2 levels have been much higher than now in the past, yet the Earth has "never" gone into "runaway global warming"...

In fact, we can look at the Ordovician- Silurian period, when CO2 levels were 4,000ppm and the Jurassic-Cretaceous period when CO2 levels were 2,000ppm (compared to now at 380-400ppm) yet Earth was experiencing global COOLING during that period... The Earth did not become Venus, and mankind activities is not going to make it so either. But keep going with the fear mongering fest based on ignorance please...


edit on 14-5-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: correct errors.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: schuyler

That is the problem right there... People like you who think they know how to read a graph.



Just because the red line is often in front of the blue line when scanning the graph left to right, does NOT mean that the blue line is lagging behind the red line. It does not mean temperature changes are causing CO2 changes...



As shown above, 130000 years ago, it is actually the temperature that is lagging behind the CO2, if you read the graph correctly.

Another good example is 330000 years ago (almost the beginning of the graph) you see a huge spike in CO2 (blue), and then later temperature (red) increases. It keeps that same lag throughout the graph.

You have been reading the graph completely wrong.

You are still correct that warmer temperatures causes oceans to release trapped CO2, but it is also true that CO2 causes warmer temperatures. That causes what is known as the "CO2 Positive Feedback Loop" which is what the main concern is.

www.abc.net.au...


Wow the shills are out in full force on this one. Here is the evidence of shilling

1. First someone quintuple posts (times 2) to bury the thread.
2. Then this guy here wrongly attributes my quote to someone else, I suppose so that I won't be alerted that someone has replied/quoted my post.
3. And if that wasn't enough, you resized the graph I posted so that you have to slide it over to see the most important part of the graph. A purposeful attempt to mislead.

For everyone else, here is all of the graph again

See the last few points on the graph, they prove the CO2 causes global warming hypothesis is incorrect. These schills are trying to hide the information. They hide it and purposefully chose not to comment on.

The last data points on the graph prove that the correlation between CO2 and temperature has broken. CO2 does not cause temperature change. CO2 is an effect of temperature change.

There it is, its a lie, its a sham. Trying to hide it won't make it go away. As for what you stated about reading graphs, You're wrong. You look at the peaks and the troughs. And you can plainly see that in many places CO2 lags temperature change.

Its nice to bust a misinfo agent.

edit on 14-5-2014 by dieseldyk because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2014 by dieseldyk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

earth is NOT subject to the same principles, because earth and venus are different enough to assert that there are different rules as to how the two planets "function"

furthermore, if CO2 causes the "greenhouse effect", and we're producing all the CO2 here on earth, where did the CO2 come from on venus? what's causing it there?


Yes, Earth is subject to the same science as Venus. Scientist believe that Venus might of had a considerable amount of liquid water that existed there before the run away greenhouse effect took hold. Run away greenhouse effect begets MORE CO2


A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.[1][2] An example of this is believed to have happened in the early history of Venus. On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to Venus


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

Well if you want a real example of the effects of carbon dioxide and heat exchange look at the planets Mercury and Venus which is actually the scientific genesis of "global warming" prior to examining the impact here on Earth; or Al Gore and all the rest..



Wow...talk about being misinformed... First of all Venus is a lot closer to the Sun than Earth is. Second, Venus atmosphere is much denser than Earth's, and although it's atmosphere consists of 96% carbon dioxide, Earth's Co2 levels would never reach that level because of man's activities... Right now CO2 in Earth's atmosphere consists of about 0.038-0.040%...


First of all scientific principles do not very based upon a planets location in relation to the sun. Second, the atmosphere of Venus is so dense due to the run away greenhouse effect, that is exactly what happens when there is a runaway greenhouse effect, CO2 levels build up and trap solar radiation, which increase temperature, repeat.



Then there is the fact that if CO2 really causes such "massive temperature increases" then why hasn't it already done so?


I has, on Venus, it is a million miles farther away from the sun than Mercury, yet it is considerable hotter due to the composition of it's atmosphere, which is as you pointed out 96% CO2.




originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
...
The Earth is subject to the exact same scientific principles
...




wow... It is certainly not... This is nothing more than scaremongering from misinformed people who don't know how else to try to scare people into believing their hogwash...



Are you trying to say that there are separate rules for science based upon your location in the solar system???

Can you link me to that new discovery???



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

you're still not answering the question

what caused it there?

and you're also completely ignoring the facts that venus is closer to the sun than earth, and that there are substantial differences between the planet, in terms of composition, orbit, and core function, which have a direct impact on atmospheric behavior, and overall planet function...



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

lol, because that's not misleading at all....



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: dieseldyk
Wow the shills are out in full force on this one. Here is the evidence of shilling

1. First someone quintuple posts (times 2) to bury the thread.
2. Then this guy here wrongly attributes my quote to someone else, I suppose so that I won't be alerted that someone has replied/quoted my post.
3. And if that wasn't enough, you resized the graph I posted so that you have to slide it over to see the most important part of the graph. A purposeful attempt to mislead.


First off, you are being foolish and paranoid.

1: All I did was post 2 posts, I had something to add, and it wouldn't let me edit my last post.

2: I did NOT wrongly attribute the quote. If you click on the name that I replied to it will take you to the exact quote I replied to. Someone posted the same graph you did on page 2 click here to see and that is who I replied to. So get a clue..

3: I didn't resize anything. What I did was use an IMG tag instead of a PIC tag, which controls the way the image is shown. I did so to make the words I added to the graph larger so people can read it.

Also, the end of the graph that you claim I am trying to hide (even though you can scroll to it if you wish) actually SUPPORTS my theory. The blue line (CO2) increased, and we have yet to see the red line (temperature) increase because it hasn't taken effect yet, it takes time. My whole premise was that temperature lags behind CO2, not the other way around.


originally posted by: dieseldyk
Its nice to bust a misinfo agent.


You call me a shill and misinfo agent, lol. Step away from the computer, you have a high level of ignorance and paranoia, it's not good for you.
edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: WeAre0ne

then how do you explain rises in CO2, before we were producing all this CO2?


There are natural sources of CO2. Volcanoes, wildfires, animals, etc.. Those all can contribute to CO2 increases, and add to the greenhouse effect. Then the ocean absorbs some of that CO2 and traps it for a while. When summer weather rolls in, or a change in the Sun takes place, that CO2 is released from the ocean when the ocean warms up, causing spikes in CO2.

However, never before has the Earth had millions and millions of little machines pumping out CO2 at an alarming rate every single minute of every single day (cars, trucks, motorcycles, generators, factories, etc..) like multiple volcanoes erupting over and over, all over the world. At the same time, we are cutting down huge amounts of trees which also absorb CO2, which is going to bite us in the rear some day.

At the current rate we are going, with this constant disagreement about man-made climate change going on, we will probably die of inert gas asphyxiation from CO2 before we do anything about the climate. Our CO2 is building up, and it's not stopping anytime soon, so no matter what there is a problem.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
OK, LET'S JUST TAKE THIS AT FACE VALUE:



ok


Nothing like a broader view of the trend to see what is going on for clarification, aye?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Daedalus, if Earth didn't have an atmosphere, we would all freeze to death at night, and burn to death in the day. Example: The Moon.

The gases in our atmosphere like CO2, oxygen, nitrogen, argon, water vapor, etc.. all work together to help keep our Earth cool in the day, and warm in the night.

Mostly water vapor and CO2 keep us warm at night, because of the greenhouse effect. The light that does make it through the atmosphere during the day will absorb into the ground, and then radiate back out at a different wavelength which can not pass through the atmosphere, and is instead absorbed into the atmosphere. This keeps us warm.

Adding excessive amounts of CO2 into the air, like humans are currently doing, will only increase the amount of warmth that is trapped in the atmosphere. Example: Venus and Mars

These are undeniable scientific facts, which can be proven in a lab experiment, and we have real life examples of.
edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

In the United States our Government funds the scientists at 2.6 billion dollars per year. We are to trust them that they are not just as greedy as Wall Street, even after the entire climate gate scandal erupted showing they are manipulating data.

CO2 emissions in the United States are down over 20% in the last 10 years. The problem is not our country, the problem is China, Brazil, and India. They wonder why they shouldn't be able to utilize the same cheapest energy to better their lives that we all in the 1st world countries have utilized for the last 100 years.

I think they have a valid point, but it doesn't matter because the left in our country continues to see it as a United States problem when our emissions are way lower. Instead their solution is to talk about green energy while maintaining the regulations not making it affordable in our country. Germany has the entire solar thing figured out, but Liberals here only want to tax everything.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
Our CO2 is building up, and it's not stopping anytime soon, so no matter what there is a problem.

I have no problem accepting the science of mans contribution to the climate going nuts.
My question is and always will be...ok, so what do we do about it...because we are simply not going to alter our lifestyle...
What technologies need to get funded to get the environment corrected, even artificially, that will either not effect, or enhance our lifestyles..because that is the only solution here.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I think the ultimate goal would be to figure out how to replicate what trees do on a massive scale, which is take CO2 from the air and convert it to Oxygen.

Or instead of going through that trouble, just use trees as tools, and learn how to grow trees 10x faster than normal, and plant them on a massive scale everywhere. Slow but sure.

Or learn how to trap CO2 from our engines and factories instead of releasing it into the air.

The other ultimate goal would be clean energy, or free energy (if it exists). But we would still need to replace engines in all cars, etc.. I don't see that happening.

There are plenty more ideas. But we started too late. I think anything we try now is just useless, we are pretty much done for. We will see droughts, animal and insect die-offs, and dead crops, high food prices, riots, hunger.. etc.. not good at all.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

you're still not answering the question

what caused it there?

and you're also completely ignoring the facts that venus is closer to the sun than earth, and that there are substantial differences between the planet, in terms of composition, orbit, and core function, which have a direct impact on atmospheric behavior, and overall planet function...


Why don't you explain to us why Mercury is over a million miles closer to the the sun, yet Venus is hotter.

Once you do that you will answer your own questions and realize that the effects of CO2 are the same here on Earth as they are on Venus.

Thanks



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: seeker1963

In the United States our Government funds the scientists at 2.6 billion dollars per year. We are to trust them that they are not just as greedy as Wall Street, even after the entire climate gate scandal erupted showing they are manipulating data.




6 different agencies, plus a study funded by the koch brothers and led by a sceptic, cleared "climategate" of any wrong doing or scandal.

matter of fact, the sceptic in charge of the koch brothers study actually said "yep, they were right, global warming is real"



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

You're cute. You don't even know why Venus is hot but here you are using decade old data invented by Sagan.

The runaway greenhouse effect of Venus is going the way of the dodo:

wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The thing with Global Warming is that it's a fact. The earth is definitely warming up,climates are definitely changing and we can already see the effects all over the planet. Now you are faced with two choices:

1-To believe Global Warming is man-made,and take precautions to reduce the effect we're having on the planet(CO2 emissions) and make future technologies more eco-friendly while also making legislations (laws,sanctions,prohibitions) more severe on corporations,industries that don't really care about the mess they produce.

2-To believe it is a natural thing the planet is going through and buckle up.

The problem comes when the effects keep getting worse.

Where I'm getting at is: IT'S IRRELEVANT WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
The problem does not come from believing this or that,the problem comes when you do NOTHING.

So the best course of action is,and always will be: To take measures,take this problem seriously and make our society more eco-friendly without going to the stone-age!

Science is our friend here, we need technologies that will let us progress and evolve through time without treating the planet like a renewable resource, because it is not.

So wether you think it's happening because of us,because it's the way the universe works,or because Aliens we all need to do something about this to try and SURVIVE THIS.
edit on 15-5-2014 by metodex because: fixed some sentences



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
You're cute. You don't even know why Venus is hot but here you are using decade old data invented by Sagan.

The runaway greenhouse effect of Venus is going the way of the dodo:

wattsupwiththat.com...


That's cute, your source tries to discredit Carl Sagan, but not Andrew Ingersoll.

What is really adorable is your source's first claim, that no sunlight reaches Venus.



The first problem is that the surface of Venus receives no direct sunshine. The Venusian atmosphere is full of dense, high clouds “30–40 km thick with bases at 30–35 km altitude.”

wattsupwiththat.com...


It is adorable because the source that was used in the above quote is from the Wikipedia page on the Venera 9 space mission.

en.wikipedia.org...



Venera 9 measured clouds that were 30–40 km thick with bases at 30–35 km altitude. It also measured atmospheric chemicals including hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, bromine, and iodine. Other measurements included surface pressure of about 90 atmospheres (9 MPa), temperature of 485 °C, and surface light levels comparable to those at Earth mid-latitudes on a cloudy summer day.


...but your source failed to include the rest of the paragraph which is in bold above, and states, "the surface light levels comparable to those at Earth on a cloudy summer day.".

Hmm, I wonder where all the light is coming from... lol

A lot of the light is direct sunlight at certain wavelengths that passed through the atmosphere (which is not solid). That light is then absorbed into the ground, and radiated back out at a different wavelength which can not pass through the atmosphere. It is then absorbed into the atmosphere, and retained as heat (the greenhouse effect).

What is really cute, is your source later says:


there is very little sunshine reaching below 30km on Venus, it does not warm the surface much


So what is it, no sunlight, or very little? Either way, the greenhouse effect is taking place on Venus, no doubt. The following quote from your source actually proves this:



This is further evidenced by the fact that there is almost no difference in temperature on Venus between day and night. It is just as hot during their very long (1400 hours) nights, so the 485C temperatures can not be due to solar heating and a resultant greenhouse effect.


The quote above from your source shows the writer doesn't fully grasp the fact that the greenhouse effect is the main reason Venus nights are hot. Because the atmosphere / greenhouse effect traps heat during the day, and retains most of that heat through the night.

In fact, that is why Earth stays relatively warm in the night too. Because the atmosphere / greenhouse effect traps heat during the day, and it keeps Earth a bit warmer at night. Without the atmosphere and greenhouse effect on Earth, we would all freeze to death at night, like on the Moon.

Your source even says:

The third problem is that Venus has almost no water vapor in the atmosphere


That is because the runaway greenhouse effect vaporized all the water to the point it ascended high into the atmosphere and was split into hydrogen and oxygen by ultraviolet light. The hydrogen then escaped into space, and oxygen stayed behind.

Your source is just completely incorrect all together. The "runaway greenhouse effect" is what caused Venus to get where it is at now. The reason it is still hot is because of the "greenhouse effect". Your source seems to think the runaway greenhouse effect is still taking place, when it isn't. It's almost as if your source confused the definition of the runaway greenhouse effect, and erroneously confused it with the plain old greenhouse effect.

The source is quite laughable really. Pressure does not cause heat.
edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)







 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join