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.

 

A really stupid global warming question

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

On that line of thinking, if we eliminate all man made sources of CO2 (unlikely, but very remotely possible in the future), couldn't that also have a catastrophic affect? I mean, we would be cooling in a big hurry just as we warmed in a big hurry. It seems no matter what bar of soap you go to pick up, Buba will be behind you.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

On that line of thinking, if we eliminate all man made sources of CO2 (unlikely, but very remotely possible in the future), couldn't that also have a catastrophic affect? I mean, we would be cooling in a big hurry just as we warmed in a big hurry. It seems no matter what bar of soap you go to pick up, Buba will be behind you.


No

1) We would only be returning to the standards that our biosphere has evolved around. Most species are incapable of adapting in one hundred years. The state of the great barrier reef is testimony to that.

2) It wouldn't happen fast, and that's part of the problem.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

Ah yes, the reports. This is something that should be illegal and punishable by death. We see the same data displayed in different ways to mis-represent or push an agenda. If I go to a pro AGW site, guess what? They claim all their data is right and the others are crackpots. Then I go to an anti AGW site and see the opposite.


Yeah but I'm not trying to show you reports and appeal to authority. I'm showing you very basic science experiments and mathematical models that effectively prove this on their own. The math in that wikipedia link may look complicated to some, but it's actually 1st year university level stuff that many ATS members on here could probably verify for themselves if they wanted to.

There's no need to "trust" either side - anyone can learn the details for themselves if they just put in the mental effort and check their predispositions at the door.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I am hopeful that people will catch on to such an idea. One of the pushbacks from hydrogen cars is having to convert the cars themselves the process the Navy is working on would mean people would just fill up at the station the same as always.

Hydrogen cars use compressed gas the Navy is creating a uncompressed liquid fuel. If there was any conversion needed to be done to our cars it would be minor and inexpensive. I think they are working on making the fuel to where no conversion would be needed.

Such a combination would make every car on the road an atmosphere scrubber.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ismail


No

1) We would only be returning to the standards that our biosphere has evolved around. Most species are incapable of adapting in one hundred years. The state of the great barrier reef is testimony to that.

OK, I get that.


2) It wouldn't happen fast, and that's part of the problem.


Why not? If we can affect things relatively easy by increasing the CO2, why would reducing CO2 not follow suit? (honest question)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
the CO2 tablet in a bottle is such a bad way of trying to prove that more CO2 heats up the air.
the volume of CO2 produced is gazillions of orders more magnitude in this 'simple experiment' than we are seeing in the atmosphere.
to do the bottle experiment on the same scale as the earth you'd need to add so little extra CO2 as to be almost impossible to measure.
A bottle the size of Wembley Stadium, and a gnats fart of extra CO2 might be a more realistic comparison.

'They' have done experiments that also 'prove' that water vapour is a far stronger 'greenhouse gas' than plain old CO2.
If you look at graphs of CO2 concentrations against average global temps - they do go up and down kind of in sync, however the graphs that I've seen show that the temp rise is ahead of the CO2 rise - so it's more affect and cause, than cause and affect.
ie heating causes more CO2 in the air, not more CO2 causes hotter air.

but what do I know?! I've only got what the experts tell me to go on, and if they're lieing?...

Sun spot activity is supposed to be closely linked with temp variations - ie more sun spots, higher temps. - however, again I've only got someone elses words on this.

Some glaciers are melting faster and dissapearing (but some are getting bigger) - some of the ice in both north and south pole is decreasing year on year (summer and winter) - but in other parts it's staying the same thickness, or even increasing.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I could get behind that like, yesterday. It kind of makes you wonder if all the Stan Meyer stuff might have had some reality to it. (at least it does me)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
Why not? If we can affect things relatively easy by increasing the CO2, why would reducing CO2 not follow suit? (honest question)


Pour some water into a casserole. Mesure it's original temperature. Heat the casserole on a gas oven. Turn off the gas when the water hits boiling point. Time how long it took the water to reach boiling point. Time how long it takes the water to cool back down again to it's original temperature.

Reducing CO2 emmissions is not reversing C02 emmissions. Or reversing global warming. It's just turning off the gas.
edit on 1-7-2014 by Ismail because: he thought of something else to say



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


I am just trying to understand this whole thing, and I seem to be shunned every time I bring logical thought into the discussion.

I heard all about the Co2, and how it was going to make us warm up a bunch, but the models seem to be incorrect and we only warmed a little.

I'm not an expert either and sooo appreciate the simple logic of the layman. We ask questions and don't get answers…

Hers some more personal observations for you…

How come there aren't new record breaking temperatures being recorded all over? The claim that "overall averages" are rising should be accompanied by hot spots i.e., hot places that are consistently hotter than ever? I see the computer models too and heard the "50 to a 100 years out" theories (convenient that, we'll all be dead by then.)

How come the sea levels haven't actually risen at all?

How come every time you want to ask about all the toxic effluence from our civilized world all you get is more talk of CO2 and "climate change"? Where is all this water from melting ice going? The melt and runoff every spring from all the snow covered mountains in the world flood out vast areas all over the planet. The vast ice sheets at the poles melt and refreeze every spring and winter. Yet sea levels remain constant.

How come some "scientists" seem to be promoting an agenda and other scientists disagreeing with their results? All the time we get threads here about some agency buttering numbers or making "escalating" claims (read that exaggerations).

I think the earth is and always will be self regulating. If the local atmosphere heats up, water evaporates and produces a cooling cloud cover. Constantly moving, constantly recycling seawater to rain, snow, ice and back again, the planet keeps an over all constant average temperature. Sea levels don't rise much, (except with the tides). The Earth turns, keeping heat from the sun even. Like cooking a roast on rotisserie…

What is killing vast numbers of people right now is all the toxic runoff from all the polluting enterprises man undertakes. I don't have the increase of cancer statistics or the compilation of how many people per capita die off because of working in toxic industries or live down wind from them. Surely love to see the overall "average increases'" of that instead of "climate models".

Big industries yield big propaganda.

Now CO2 scolders have at the layman with talk of future worries.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Affordable and efficient renewable energy solutions are coming and many are already here. This is now a freight train that can't be stopped.

The point a lot of us AGW proponents that post on a conspiracy site like ATS are trying to make - is that there is a huge political movement to try and prevent this from happening (or at least significantly delay it from taking hold).

A huge part of this push is to convince you that global warming is a giant hoax, because global warming is largely the springboard for ushering in this new paradigm. But it's coming one way or the other, and there are plenty of reasons to cheer it on and support it no matter what your personal beliefs and political leanings are:



I like the idea of owning and controlling my own energy, do you?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I am not sure about the Sea levels. In my state, there is some concern for rising (or maybe just changing) levels.

Now the idiots who built a house 5 feet from the high tide mark deserve whatever they get, but the beaches in the northern NC coast seem to be changing slightly. And again, I have no idea if this has anything at all to do with anything else. I just live here, so I see it first hand.

But I appreciate your questions. I have already learned some things from this.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared


I like the idea of owning and controlling my own energy, do you?


Absolutely. But do you think those who profit from Oil will ever let that happen?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude


I am just trying to understand this whole thing, and I seem to be shunned every time I bring logical thought into the discussion.

I heard all about the Co2, and how it was going to make us warm up a bunch, but the models seem to be incorrect and we only warmed a little.

I'm not an expert either and sooo appreciate the simple logic of the layman. We ask questions and don't get answers…

Hers some more personal observations for you…

How come there aren't new record breaking temperatures being recorded all over? The claim that "overall averages" are rising should be accompanied by hot spots i.e., hot places that are consistently hotter than ever? I see the computer models too and heard the "50 to a 100 years out" theories (convenient that, we'll all be dead by then.)

How come the sea levels haven't actually risen at all?

How come every time you want to ask about all the toxic effluence from our civilized world all you get is more talk of CO2 and "climate change"? Where is all this water from melting ice going? The melt and runoff every spring from all the snow covered mountains in the world flood out vast areas all over the planet. The vast ice sheets at the poles melt and refreeze every spring and winter. Yet sea levels remain constant.

How come some "scientists" seem to be promoting an agenda and other scientists disagreeing with their results? All the time we get threads here about some agency buttering numbers or making "escalating" claims (read that exaggerations).

I think the earth is and always will be self regulating. If the local atmosphere heats up, water evaporates and produces a cooling cloud cover. Constantly moving, constantly recycling seawater to rain, snow, ice and back again, the planet keeps an over all constant average temperature. Sea levels don't rise much, (except with the tides). The Earth turns, keeping heat from the sun even. Like cooking a roast on rotisserie…

What is killing vast numbers of people right now is all the toxic runoff from all the polluting enterprises man undertakes. I don't have the increase of cancer statistics or the compilation of how many people per capita die off because of working in toxic industries or live down wind from them. Surely love to see the overall "average increases'" of that instead of "climate models".

Big industries yield big propaganda.

Now CO2 scolders have at the layman with talk of future worries.



The world is getting hotter. Look up average global temp. It's been a record every year.


Sea levels have risen. Just only like a foot or so if I remember right.


Your right about the tablet, it's way more concentrated in the bottle then we do in the atmosphere. But we have very complex math to tell us what raised levels will cause. No, we don't know everything. But we do know it's undeniable more co2 =more heat.


There are a lot of variables involved that can effect global temp in the short run. Like global hazing ( pollution blocking the sun.) but there is no doubt what the end result will be.

Oh, I agree whole heartedly about toxic chemicals and cancer. My mother just died from skin cancer. Honestly when was the last time some one you knew died of natural causes and it wasn't cancer? How is that not a bigger story?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
But we do know it's undeniable more co2 =more heat.


First of all, I am sorry to hear about your mother.

I get the experiments on CO2 and the science behind it. So how do we justify those that claim CO2 follows temperature? They must have some reasoning behind their theory.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: mc_squared

I like the idea of owning and controlling my own energy, do you?


Absolutely. But do you think those who profit from Oil will ever let that happen?


Dude...Network Dude... Exactly!

We're so close here yet so far it seems. Oil companies have a lot of power - but so do we as consumers. They can't force us to buy things we don't want to buy and not buy things we do, but they can certainly influence our reasoning and thinking behind those decisions.

Which is why they've invested so much money into convincing everyone that global warming is a hoax, that renewable alternatives are just a pie in the sky Liberal fantasy that will never fly, and that everyone should just keeping shopping, spending and consuming energy mindlessly - because it's good for the economy and jobs blah blah blah.

Now say you are one of these mindless consumers, but you had become convinced global warming was a serious problem - wouldn't you make changes in your consumer habits? Wouldn't you start looking at the long term investments of energy efficiency, solar panels, electric cars, etc? Now imagine if this mentality actually catches on. It may be more expensive in the short term, but the long term benefits far outweigh the initial growing pains and cost.

Look at the massive backlash that has occurred against industrial farming and GMO's because of how "trendy" the idea of going organic has gotten (even though it's more expensive).

This is the kind of thing that oil companies and other corporatist hacks are absolutely terrified of.


They may be very powerful, but they are not powerful enough to stop an idea whose time has come.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ArtemisE
But we do know it's undeniable more co2 =more heat.


First of all, I am sorry to hear about your mother.

I get the experiments on CO2 and the science behind it. So how do we justify those that claim CO2 follows temperature? They must have some reasoning behind their theory.


There are a lot of variables. Say it's not quite as hot as models show next year. Well, what if it should have been a record cold winter but the effect of Co2 caused it to be a mild winter? Plus there's the pollution masking the ground so it doesn't absorb as much sunlight as normal.


We know CO2 equals more heat. We don't know all the other processes involved. I'm sure there are dozens of climate models all saying were prob gonna screw things up. Deniers will go out and find the one that's the farthest off and hold that up as proof it's all a lie! While ignoring that some are predicting exactly what we are seeing.

Go back and watch an inconvenient truth again. It's pretty much dead on. Deniers go find one thing wrong and hold that up as proof it's all fake.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

About the solar farms. Do you have any data on the profitability of them to date? A friend of mine who works for the power company told me a bit about them. He said that the government forces them to buy power from them at a higher rate to make them appear more sustainable than they really are at this point.

I cannot find anything on the net about that aspect of it. So that is just hearsay now.

Again, I am all for it if it works and will be a real replacement for how we make energy now. I even think it if was close to the same cost, the savings will be counted with no nuclear waste to deal with and no bad things in the air from coal. I am just not sure how much bad things we make in the production process. And are there any long term issues with disposal? (like the batteries in all the Prius')



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

About the solar farms. Do you have any data on the profitability of them to date? A friend of mine who works for the power company told me a bit about them. He said that the government forces them to buy power from them at a higher rate to make them appear more sustainable than they really are at this point.

I cannot find anything on the net about that aspect of it. So that is just hearsay now.

Again, I am all for it if it works and will be a real replacement for how we make energy now. I even think it if was close to the same cost, the savings will be counted with no nuclear waste to deal with and no bad things in the air from coal. I am just not sure how much bad things we make in the production process. And are there any long term issues with disposal? (like the batteries in all the Prius')


The future will be solar roads, not farms!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



Now the idiots who built a house 5 feet from the high tide mark deserve whatever they get, but the beaches in the northern NC coast seem to be changing slightly. And again, I have no idea if this has anything at all to do with anything else. I just live here, so I see it first hand.

That might be due to shore erosion by continuos wave action of the sea more than the claim of higher sea levels. No?

ETA: Especially as a result of storms and sometime earthquakes, Tsunamis as well, over time.
edit on 1-7-2014 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
The future will be solar roads, not farms!


That will be a cool thing to see. I hope it's not as far off as my replicator. (I am in the office right now and need to replicate a cold beer)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join