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.

 

"The World Is Warming Faster Than We Thought"

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Agenda 21 isn't about the saving the earth. It's about control. Remember that when it starts making an impact in your part of the world.




posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Of course it went over your head because you didn't pay attention to the article. Only Electric Universe thought they were smart for posting a rebuttal.

So I will break it down just for electric universe. The article is about warming in the "Southern Hemisphere" the poster thinks because it is cold in Chicago the two were related.

I poked fun at the poster because they didn't realize the article is about the "Southern Hemisphere" it was funny for those who got the joke now you are part of the joke. Even those who didn't get the joke were smart enough not to poke at it probably because they realized there was something they were missing.

Thanks for playing. It is always fun.
edit on 14-10-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Science is frequently "wrong," and admits as much openly. Science is a process, not a set of stone tablets and proclamations. Unlike pseudoscience, which claims to be infallible, mixes cause and effect, and can't tell the difference between a hypotheses and data.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak
...
Hasn't changed much in the past 100 years either. Unless you consider a change (up and down) of about 0.01% to be much.
lasp.colorado.edu...


Riiight... That's what Phage would like you to believe...

BTW, what Phage will try to do next is to post a graph which only shows the differences in "sunpot numbers" from one cycle to the next, and he will proclaim that is proof of AGW. But what he won't tell you is that those graphs he will give you will not show you how at solar minimum magnetic storms, and TSI had been increasing. He knows this, or he should since he has been posting his "beliefs" for many years on ATS about this subject and should have realized this a long time ago.




posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Where can I find a good list of scientists and scientific organizations either proposing or denying Man Made Global Warming?

Having a hard time finding anything in one place besides NASA?

Thanks!



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Did the poster specifically state that he believes Illinois is in the southern hemisphere?...

Just because a person says "it is also cold in my neck of the woods" in response to an article about cold in the southern hemisphere it doesn't mean "the person believes north america is part of the southern hemisphere"... The person is just adding the fact that it is also cold in his/her neck of the woods...

BTW, the title of the thread is "the world is warming faster than we thought"... Last I checked the northern regions of the U.S. are also part of "the world". Or isn't it according to grimpachi?


edit on 14-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


If it's a "natural cycle", what's the nature of the cycle? What's the physical mechanism? What are the observational signatures? How does it override the effect from increased greenhouse effect?

Do science, and deny ignorance.


Oh right, you mean like how is it possible to blame climate change on AGW when the Earth has been warming since the 1600s almost 300 yeas before the height of the industrial revolution?...

Or how can you blame climate change on anthropogenic CO2 when in the troposphere water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect yet climate change is largely being blamed on "anthropogenic" CO2 by some people?...


edit on 14-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You didn't get the joke now you're trying to cover your mistake. I expect no less from you.

Not for a second did you try to defend who I was responding to but now that you see how you messing up all of the sudden the excuses start flying.

Thats OK plenty of people got the joke and now that I explained it for you. Clearly you do as well.




BTW, the title of the thread is "the world is warming faster than we thought"...


Perhaps people should read more than titles.
edit on 14-10-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Leave it up to grimpachi to twist things around... What's next Grimpachi, post a link to a comedian as a response?



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
Agenda 21 isn't about the saving the earth. It's about control. Remember that when it starts making an impact in your part of the world.


Haven't you heard/read some of the responses made by many of the AGW proponents about "allowing developing countries like China, India, and Russia to increase their CO2 emissions meanwhile lowering those of the U.S. and the western world will save the world"?

It seems that unfortunately even to the AGW proponents wealth redistribution, meanwhile some countries would be allowed to emit more CO2 than any of the western nations, is a sound tactic to "save the world"... After all, how can it not "save the world" to tax to death western consumers meanwhile allowing China, india, Russia, etc to emit as much CO2 as they want to?...

Hey, the western world was allowed to do it, we can postpone "the end of the world by CO2" as long as the western world lower their emissions while paying taxes to be redistributed to the rich meanwhile China, Russia, India, etc will continue to increase their CO2 emissions to unprecedented levels... Right?... After all, "we have to save the world"...



edit on 14-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


I think you're missing a big point when you say we let China and India and other third world countries pollute. We really can't Make them do anything. The bigger point though is that just because India pollutes doesn't mean that we should. We should be better and keep our own backyard clean. Also any pollution control is better than none. Maybe the effect isn't huge but we know that localized pollution has big effects...take LA and the Smog there for example.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Well, the problem is that CO2 is not a pollutant. Remember that you are living in a world where life is carbon based and in which life needs CO2.

BTW CO2 is not part of smog. CO2 is invisible and is not a hydrocarbon. Not to mention that higher levels of CO2 than at present is actually good for all life. BTW, you have to understand the difference between CO2 and the real pollutants in smog.

Smog is composed of hydrocarbons (made entirely from hydrogen and carbon) carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. Trying to go after CO2, by sequestration, and you are not only sequestering anthropogenic CO2, but you will also sequester natural CO2 emissions. By doing this worldwide food shortages will become much worse. not to mention that with less atmospheric CO2 all plants and green biomass will need more water which will mean less potable water for humans and animals.

To you it might sound ok and dandy that certain world leaders and world organizations do not want to impose CO2 emissions in developing countries, and that for some reason you might think "it will stop climate change and save the world". But take this in perspective.

China is one of the most polluted nations in the world and right now its CO2 emissions are 29% of the total anthropogenic emissions of CO2. That is "right now". BTW, why do you think that even during the time when China's CO2 emissions were not even up to those of the U.S. that China air pollutants have been worse than in any other nation?

China, alongside Russia, India, etc will continue to increase their CO2 emissions and world leaders are agreeing to allow this.

Western nations have been improving their technologies to make carbon source fuels "cleaner" from the real toxic gasses found in "smog". China hasn't been doing this, and neither will India, or Russia, or any of the other countries that "will be allowed to increase their emissions. That's what "world leaders and world organizations' are agreeing with. You think this is really about "saving the planet"?








edit on 14-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: amazing

Well, the problem is that CO2 is not a pollutant. Remember that you are living in a world where life is carbon based and in which life needs CO2.

BTW CO2 is not part of smog. CO2 is invisible and is not a hydrocarbon. Not to mention that higher levels of CO2 than at present is actually good for all life. BTW, you have to understand the difference between CO2 and the real pollutants in smog.

Smog is composed of hydrocarbons (made entirely from hydrogen and carbon) carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. Trying to go after CO2, by sequestration, and you are not only sequestering anthropogenic CO2, but you will also sequester natural CO2 emissions. By doing this worldwide food shortages will become much worse. not to mention that with less atmospheric CO2 all plants and green biomass will need more water which will mean less potable water for humans and animals.

To you it might sound ok and dandy that certain world leaders and world organizations do not want to impose CO2 emissions in developing countries, and that for some reason you might think "it will stop climate change and save the world". But take this in perspective.

China is one of the most polluted nations in the world and right now its CO2 emissions are 29% of the total anthropogenic emissions of CO2. That is "right now". BTW, why do you think that even during the time when China's CO2 emissions were not even up to those of the U.S. that China air pollutants have been worse than in any other nation?

China, alongside Russia, India, etc will continue to increase their CO2 emissions and world leaders are agreeing to allow this.

Western nations have been improving their technologies to make carbon source fuels "cleaner" from the real toxic gasses found in "smog". China hasn't been doing this, and neither will India, or Russia, or any of the other countries that "will be allowed to increase their emissions. That's what "world leaders and world organizations' are agreeing with. You think this is really about "saving the planet"?






The discussion all boils down to pollution though. And don't forget that too much CO2 kills humans. We're talking about us. The humans.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing


The discussion all boils down to pollution though. And don't forget that too much CO2 kills humans. We're talking about us. The humans.


But CO2 is not a pollutant, and right now atmospheric CO2 levels are nowhere near to what would be fatal or even harmful to humans.

I am guessing that you are right now indoors. Did you know that indoor CO2 levels are at an average of 1,000 ppm or so? yet, people and animals live with these levels of atmospheric CO2. The real problems with the quality of the air indoor is a lack of proper ventilation, and a lack of oxygen. If you are indoors there is nothing that will change CO2 into oxygen.

There is also the apparent belief by some people that when they hear someone dies from car exhaust emissions, that their death was caused by CO2, and this is not true. Such deaths occur because CO (Carbon Monoxide) levels are too high, and not because of CO2. If you are in an area where CO (Carbon Monoxide) levels are 800 ppm, death can occur within 2-3 hours.

But higher levels of CO2 than at present, and this is what happens.


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Now again, I am not saying that it is ok to emit real toxic gases and chemicals, but people need to understand the difference between CO2 and the gases and chemicals that are really toxic.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I agree that it is very important to be scientifically accurate in all matters. It is true that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that we will achieve will not be physiologically toxic directly---that was not ever the scientific concern.

The large climate changes coming---we are heading to 4 degrees C total change, very much will be dangerous to many people because of extreme weather events.

People radically underestimate what that level of climate change means, the scientific numbers are misleading intuitively. The difference between current and an Ice Age, in this same metric, is about 5 degrees C in global average temperature.

You think it would be much larger, right? Massive glaciers everywhere---New York was covered in a glacier a MILE thick! But that was only 5 degrees C, and averaged over the entire planet, including ocean, over all seasons. The effect on poles and extreme weather will be much amplified.

A Heat Age in the other direction which is where we are certainly headed to will be as catastrophic in the other direction. Some simulations show mean summer temperatures above the maximum ever seen in a place. This means, for instance, *average* summer temperatures in Texas or Louisiana like 120 F. A heat wave would be 140 or 150, persisting for a week or two. This will literally kill people and every bit of agriculture. Above a certain temperature it is thermodynamically impossible for a human to cool down no matter how much they sweat or breathe, heatstroke and death is certain if untreated. Entire regions will be depopulated and be but a brown mad-max wasteland of junk.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The climate negotiations do not want to let anybody "off the hook". China, more the USA, now, accepts the reality of global warming from fossil fuels. They are starting to do a little bit, but nobody is doing nearly enough.


Australia's government is firmly heading backwards to aggressive ignorance. And of all places---it's already freakishly hot there and they have plenty of sun. Tony Abbott is obsessed with digging and burning toxic coal.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: mbkennel


If it's a "natural cycle", what's the nature of the cycle? What's the physical mechanism? What are the observational signatures? How does it override the effect from increased greenhouse effect?

Do science, and deny ignorance.


Oh right, you mean like how is it possible to blame climate change on AGW when the Earth has been warming since the 1600s almost 300 yeas before the height of the industrial revolution?...


Yes it is possible to blame climate change on human factors because more than one thing can change climate simultaneously. The point is not to blame all climate change on human factors which was never the scientific position anyway, but to blame on humans what deserves to be blamed, and that is now noticeable and will be very significant.

Take a look at the this.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

There was a dip from 1000 to 1600 and a slow rise up to 1900, at which point the rise starts to get faster, and in the recent period still, even faster.

Remember also that in the dawn of the industrial revolution the quantity of CO2 emitted by humans was much smaller than today---the rate we are emitting is so much larger that most of the effect is in recent years.

Quantification matters. If we were emitting CO2 at the same rate as 1800, i.e. england digging up coal, and kept it at that level permanently, there would be little significant impact on climate.




Or how can you blame climate change on anthropogenic CO2 when in the troposphere water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect yet climate change is largely being blamed on "anthropogenic" CO2 by some people?...


This is also scientifically acceptable. Once again, multiple things happen at the same time.

Firstly, wter vapor does not account for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect firstly, (I already posted this), it is the largest single component but not that large, and CO2 is the other dominant component. (Because the system of radiative transfer is self-interacting, components of forcing are not separably additive).

Secondly, humans can be blamed for CO2 changes because it has a lifetime of 100 years in the atmosphere, whereas water is in statistical equilibrium (thanks to weather) with the large oceans and has a lifetime of two weeks, so the effect of water's greenhouse effect is to modulate, both up and down, the effect of other longer lived drivers in the atmosphere. This physics has been known for literally decades.

The natural greenhouse effect accounts for 31 degrees C of global temperature difference, which is enormous. It is true that human influence will change this by a "small" amount, but a "small" amount on this measure will still be very large in human terms.

Without the natural greenhouse effect, the entire Earth's surface, including over oceans would be a thick ice glacier, freezing temperatures even at the equator. It would look like Europa from a spacecraft. There would likely not be any life higher than microbes.
edit on 14-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
there havent been any reports for a while about rising water levels anywhere
wouldnt that be one of the first signs of global warming


edit on 23-10-2014 by blacktie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: blacktie
there havent been any reports recently about rising water levels anywhere wouldnt that be one of the first signs of warming


Yes, it would be the signs of global warming, and that's exactly what you see, and yes there have been reports about it.


academics.eckerd.edu...



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


...climate models suggest that the oceans of the southern hemisphere have been sucking up more than twice as much of the heat trapped by our excess greenhouse gases than previously calculated.
This means we may have underestimated the extent to which our world has been warming. ...



 


horse fertilizer....
only the man caused global warming scientists even think that southern oceans are sucking up the hotter ambient air...

the knowledgeable Real scientists are aware that hundreds of (previously unknown) under sea volcanos are actively heating up the deep water abyss-- it ain't heating up because millions of diesel trucks/busses are making the atmosphere warmer & then causing the oceans to heat up


the source is a boatload

 


a reply to: mbkennel


no... the expanding Earth hypothesis would also cause sea levels to rise IF the ocean floors are expanding faster than the continental land masses are rising



edit on rd31141412336123022014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join