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.

 

Cosmos: Global Warming

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
That was arguably the most powerful TV program ever broadcast on television since it's invention.

The show begins with a visual of the planet Venus. Were told that the planets outer atmosphere is almost entirely sulfuric oxide - an aerosol - which reflects the suns rays away from the planet. Why then, is Venus 455 degrees celcius - a hellish environment? Because the minute rays of sunlight that do eke by the shield of sulfuric oxide are kept IN by a small concentration of Carbon Dioxide. If you can imagine, an outer gas enveloping the planet keeps energy away from the planet. But the bit of energy that gets through is kept within the lower atmosphere by a gas which enhances the effects of the energy. This is where Venus' boiling hot 455 degree surface temperature comes from.

What an incisive way to start the show. Carbon Dioxide and it's effect on planetary temperature needs to be understood. Yes, there are only a few parts per million of it in our atmosphere, but through analyses of ice cores were able to establish correspondences between co2 levels and climate millions of years into our past, and we can see that carbon dioxide is the main regulator of the earths climate i.e temperature

In 1775, planetary co2 was measured at 280 ppm. Today, in 2014, it is hovering around 400 ppm. That is an enormous elevation, obviously caused by us and our own profligate use of fossil fuels that power our electrical grid and move our vehicles. The earth has kept these fuels as deposits WITHIN the earth, and out of the atmosphere. Our drilling and extracting these fuels out of the earth and subsequent combustion of them releases co2 back into the atmosphere.

So were burning fuels that release this gas a byproduct. The atmosphere is getting hotter. So what? We can dial it back by developing technologies like solar, geothermal and wind. True. True. But the issue is far more complicated than this.

The show goes on to explain that higher atmospheric co2 has ineluctably led to the melting of the frozen waters of the arctic. Today, for the first time in recorded history, the northern passage is open. Ships can sail from Russia to Canada through this northern passage. It's important at this point - if you've allowed a skeptical thought to enter your mind - to remember that co2 levels in the atmosphere have increased. Remember Venus? co2 regulates temperature, and so the increase of co2 within our atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has led to an unceasing melt of the arctic ocean, the ice sheets of Greenland and the ice sheets of Antarctica.

When the suns energy hits our planet, about 20% of it is reflected back by the ice sheets of the North and Southern poles. Think about that. In a very real way, these ice sheets help keep the planet cooler - the oceans cooler - and in turn optimize the growth of life. This means that with the ice sheets melting, less and less energy from the sun is being reflected away. Dark blue water absorbs more energy than white ice. This creates whats called a positive feedback effect. Elevated Co2 levels -> Increased planetary temperature -> Melting of the ice -> Warming of the Oceans -> Increase in Planetary temperature. Other positive feedback effects like this are the thawed organic materials in the tundra, which will release co2 into the atmosphere.

We are in danger of throwing nature into a dangerous spiral. The ice in the north and south poles cool the oceans. They help stabilize planetary temperature. With a melting of these ice sheets will come a exponential increase in temperature.

I don't think the planet is going to die. But this sort of runaway effect is absolutely terrifying. The glaciers which half the world depend upon for drinking water will certainly melt. This means floods (from precipitously melting glaciers) and drought (from a dearth of normal water flow from the glaciers into the rivers in the summer months.

Honestly, this episode was important. This needs to be better understood because we do not have much time to dally. We cannot wait for 'renewables' like solar and wind and geothermal to in their good time supplant coal, oil and natural gas. The longer we wait, the further we risk putting ourselves beyond a point of no return. Runaway effects will be difficult to control; and frankly, I would feel very uncomfortable doing what the Earth has done for free: regulating it's own climate, especially when there is still so much we don't understand about how the earths biota and molecular atmospheric gases interact.

Thus, it was appropriate that the show returned to the image of Venus at the end. The planet is literally hell. Just think for a second that Venus doesn't have to be as hot as it is. It's the combined influence of aerosols in the outer atmosphere keeping the suns energy out, and carbon dioxide keeping energy in, that makes Venus such a hellhole.

If the earth got to hot, and we were forced to put aerosols in the outer atmosphere to cool the planet, how unfortunate it would be if things grew out of control and the earth began to stabilize aerosols in the outer atmosphere without ejecting enough co2 from the lower atmosphere. It seems Venus would be an apposite model of what could result.

So, this means, we are up against time. I do not think this show is a coincidence, nor do I think the White Houses official statement a few weeks back was an accident either. People need to face up to the fact that we really are in a dire situation calling for immediate action. This action cannot afford to be delayed. We cannot have our cake and eat it too: we cannot maintain our economic standards if we are to act effectively. We have to accept a carbon tax. We need to make carbon - fossil fuels - too costly to be economically viable. We need to PUSH solar and geothermal and wind, and even nuclear, as replacements.

Yes, this does mean the price of living will go up. Price of electricity will go up. Water will go up (electricity powers water infrastructure plants) everything, because everything is essentially predicated on fossil fuels as the engine of the economy. Yes. It sucks. I don't like it. BUT, I am mature and aware enough to recognize whats at stake. When you're sick and you discover you have a terminal illness you will do whatever the doctor - the most knowledgeable person - recommends. Similarly, we need to appreciate the science that's been discovered and we need to recognize the necessity of action. THIS IS THE RATIONAL RESPONSE.

What addles my mind is the cognitive dissonance this will create in people who a) subscribe to a contrary view b) are afraid of the cosnequences. The former group of people always seem to manage to find some rationale - they give precedence to some ridiculous idea, all the while ignoring the most relevant piece of information: this being how cognitive dissonance manages to be effective.




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

This_Isn't_Venus.

Man made toxins will do us much sooner than their Venutian projections. Isn't that what all the climate hub hub is designed to do? Just like Chemtrails, Building 7 and The Bermuda Triangle (to name a few), we're all suppose to be distracted by the smoke and mirror, dog and pony show.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Sadly, Venus supposedly once had an atmosphere like earth. It used to have blue skies. Now they are yellow.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
We have to quit messing with the chemistry of the ecosystem. We are fools to create such toxic unnatural substances in such high amounts. Now does the present generation have the right to cause harm for our future generations just to line our pocketbooks? I think there will soon be a major correction in the population of the world. Are we or our families going to be allowed to survive? I doubt it. Just a few million key individuals. Know the medical properties of nature.

I just had to include a little doom porn....it's been so dry here lately



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: luxordelphi

We used to have blue skies too. Now they are filled with chemtrails. Why doesn't Neil DeGrasse Tyson start by coming clean on geoengineering?


+5 more 
posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte
If the ice sheets melt in the Antarctic how many more fossils of plants and animals will they find? I was reading about plant fossils that were 100 million years old and dinosaur bones they found there. Not sure if mankind was burning fossil fuels or coal powered plants back then to make it warm enough for plants to grow in the Antarctic. Sorry but I don't agree that imposing a carbon tax would help lower the temp of the planet. I think it's just a way to get more money from people. If they want to tax something why not tax politicians $20 for every lie they say that way the country would be out of debt and might even have a surplus.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

Always a good idea to look up while asking: What Color is Your Sky?


Sometimes thick pollution causes the sky to appear white, but a clean sky is blue.



In many places air pollution causes haze that causes the sky to appear pale blue or even milky white. Layers of air pollution can cause the sky over the horizon to appear brown or gray. Air pollution can take many forms. It can be gases and vapors, mists and droplets or tiny particles of carbon or other materials.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The present 'Cosmos' incarnation has been giving out valuable data in almost every show. Watching each episode at least twice will jump-start some connections between human activity and our understanding of both the best and the worse of humanity and its habits.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: Astrocyte
If the ice sheets melt in the Antarctic how many more fossils of plants and animals will they find? I was reading about plant fossils that were 100 million years old and dinosaur bones they found there. Not sure if mankind was burning fossil fuels or coal powered plants back then to make it warm enough for plants to grow in the Antarctic. Sorry but I don't agree that imposing a carbon tax would help lower the temp of the planet. I think it's just a way to get more money from people. If they want to tax something why not tax politicians $20 for every lie they say that way the country would be out of debt and might even have a surplus.




I have to agree...
It's what I refer to as 'Climate Evolution'.....natural cycles that Mother Earth goes through and has been for millions of years

And what is imposing taxes gonna do?
Nothing except make cost of living higher

The ONLY way to stop mankind from polluting our Earth is to stop production of all products

NO cars/trucks
NO tv's
NO smart phones
NO air conditioners
NO games/consoles
NO dvds/cds
NO computers
NO airplanes/buses
NO internet
NO.....
NO.....
NO....

In other words, as long as consumers demand all these products, well lectures on 'Global Warming ' is useless
The only way to stop polluting our air is by going back to the pioneer days before Man created all these fancy gadgets

--NO technology -- *gasp*

But is anyone willing to give all this up?????????
NOPE...

So tax away, all that will do is make people have to pay more for said products, because it WILL NOT do anything to deter GW
That's the truth of the matter

As long as we want our toys, well.....*shrugs*



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte


I completely understand the science behind anthropogenic climate change and fully support methods via industry and other means to combat it. What I do not support is this tripe:




We have to accept a carbon tax. We need to make carbon - fossil fuels - too costly to be economically viable.


Sending billions of people into poverty, while those who collect the taxes stay rich, is a good way to enslave the whole planet and cause a world war.

No one has been able to adequately explain to me how a carbon tax would reduce fossil fuel emissions. All it would do is put undue hardship on small business and individuals while ensuring that the industries most responsible for the greenhouse emissions continue doing what they do. Changing nothing. The people collecting the taxes and the corporations who back such money making schemes are the only ones who stand to benefit from it.

We also haven't addressed the rest of the world. China is an enormous economy with over a billion people producing more pollution than any other nation on Earth. Over the next 50 years you will have the Middle East, emerging markets in Africa, emerging markets in South America, and the wholesale expansion of the South East Asian emerging markets all wanting a piece of the economic prosperity pie.

We haven't even begun talking about Russia and India whose economic growth potential is enormous, but does not seem to share our enthusiasm for environmentalism. Neither do any of the other emerging economies.

How exactly are you going to enforce a global policy of zero carbon without the technology to back it up and the guns to force the poor folks into compliance?

What we need to do is start inventing, investing, and putting our money where our mouths are and stop assuming government will fix it. They won't. If anything they will create a new set of problems in the wake of their global solution that will cost the lives and livelihoods of billions around the world.

I see the problems with climate change. I fully acknowledge them. But I'm not naive and the rest of you folks that think a carbon tax and some solar panels will fix it need to wake the hell up. You can't stand on a pedestal and proclaim what needs to be done and then at the end of your tirade exclaim that we need to let "them" do it for us.

Every single day I read stories that would be an enormous benefit to us as a whole, like the solar road, higher efficiency hybrid and electric vehicles, high efficiency battery technology, particle technologies like the recent light to matter conversion discovery made just a few weeks ago.

There is hope for the future. I do not accept alarmism. What I do accept is the problem. With that I accept that there must be solutions. The more I look, the more I see them.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Alright already I support the stopping of all fossil fuels, industry, and carbon emission on Venus. I give up you win on the whole global warming issue. Call the White House it's over, we will no longer produce goods off world. Those lazy ass venetians cost to much anyway, after unionizing, and demanding Obama Care. What's next will they want an increase in minimum wage? They already get 14.25 tracons per lunar cycle.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I don't remember ever reading where Venus had a blue sky? If you could post a link I'd love to read about it but I thought that Venus, by theory was a failed earth as in it was like early hostile earth but not anywhere near blue sky earth. I'm also curious how do we know c02 rise isn't from another source? Maybe the same source that causes c02 to rise causes a warmer planet and not that c02 is the main contributor but a side effect. There were no huge industrial civilizations during the medieval warming period yet the planet was a lot warmer than it is now, then we had the little ice age....I think it's the sun personally from what I've read and naturally with or without us it will happen, but we do contribute very minutely to it and pollution is a very bad thing. Humans being the primary cause, I very much doubt. All these warming models followed by scandals tells me something. I have yet to read any natural cycle theory scandals but there may be some, just no where near what the warming campaign has worked into ppl.

Btw I don't agree with any computer modeling since there are so many variables I'm sure haven't been accurately taken into account. Just look at the models predicted ten years ago showing the earth with no ice.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
NiZZiM is quite correct to be skeptical of modeling. If it's absolutely essential and will convince anyone, I'll search for the source again, but 78 out of the 80 models used since 2000 have predicted warmer temperatures than we actually have.

It seems, at fist glance, that the Cosmos show, is a re-presentation of the argument found in An Inconvenient Truth.

Support among scientists for AGW, and global temperatures themselves, have been falling. Trying to jump start the argument in this way seems more about trying to sway public opinion than anything else.

Please, I would really like to find out the facts which would show me that this a serious problem caused by man which will harm us unless drastic steps are taken very, very quickly. So far, scientists are, in the main, not buying it.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I did not watch the show when I seen it was about global warming so I have a question.

Did anyone on the show bring up how many more millions of miles closer Venus is to that giant ball of fire at the center of our solar system than Earth is? How can that distance NOT be factored in when discussing how hot Venus is?

No wait, never mind. It has to be the carbon pollution on Venus and not its proximity to the sun that causes all that heat if they want to get stupid people to accept paying higher taxes that will in some way keep our planet from becoming Venus.

Ridiculous!



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: sasquatch5100



How can that distance NOT be factored in when discussing how hot Venus is?

It is. Without its very dense CO2 atmosphere, Venus would not be so very hot.

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952




I'll search for the source again, but 78 out of the 80 models used since 2000 have predicted warmer temperatures than we actually have.

Ok. While you're about it, it might be a good idea to determine whether those models provide specific temperatures or a range of temperatures. If so, maybe you could check to see if the global average temperature change falls within that range.


Please, I would really like to find out the facts which would show me that this a serious problem caused by man which will harm us unless drastic steps are taken very, very quickly. So far, scientists are, in the main, not buying it.
In the main, they are. In the main, the consensus is that the harm is pretty much done and the best we can do is mitigate the rate at which warming will continue.


edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ok. While you're about it, it might be a good idea to determine whether those models provide specific temperatures or a range of temperatures.


I have noticed possible global warming in California. In winter, ice formed on rain puddles some mornings. That hasn't happened in 30 years.

However, a model could be made to prove anything. The understanding of the idea or process the model correlates to is the best way to determine its validity. I've never heard anything but assertions about AGW. No explanations or arguments proving indisputable Anthropogenic Global Warming.


If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Albert Einstein

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...


edit on 2-6-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate



No explanations or arguments proving indisputable Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Nothing in science is indisputable.
Have you read this?
www.ipcc.ch...


If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Simply...increased CO2 concentrations lead to increased radiative forcing.

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: luxordelphi

We used to have blue skies too. Now they are filled with chemtrails. Why doesn't Neil DeGrasse Tyson start by coming clean on geoengineering?


I'm pretty sure we once use to have reddish/pink skies... before the oceans filled with oxygen...



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SalientSkivvy
No. Rayleigh scattering is what causes blue skys and it doesn't matter much what the molecular composition is. If the atmosphere on Mars were dense enough the Martian sky would be blue.

math.ucr.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join