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.

 

There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
continued from previous page

because people believed the spin from a few not the facts from the experts like the IAEA and Hans Blick. Scarely this is much more of a risk and issue to our safety and security than he could have ever been.



Regards

Elf.

Some sources. I mention about the previous atmosphere being changed by single celled organisms to oxygen powered one. I don’t have the actual papers in front of me. For verification of this topic and indeed to understand this topic more before most people should post on this please source and read from following

The Sixth Extinction - Richard Leakey I believe, sure that’s his name, he’s a PhD very well regarded in the field, Great source for the climate and all past extinction events on the earth. Its been several years since ive read it but its there and as I say.

Also he had some help I believe or quoted peer reviewed work by James Lovelock, I would suggest everyone reads ALL of his published (popular books for ease of understanding) on this subject.

Nasa and also Woods Hole Oceanographic Research Centre, both mention that on current understanding it is impossible for mankind not to be effecting the climate though the degree to which it is currently immeasurable. I believe the Nasa paper mentioning this was there February report last year on global Warming. It is mentioned and proven in Woods Hole paper that it HAS BEEN PROVEN HUMANKIND IS WARMING THE OCEANS another effect of global warming with far reaching consequences that are not understood yet (any change here will affect the climate for the next 200,000 years or more.

I mention that simply the amount of iron in the oceans has a massive effect on the climate… well it does iron allows the algae to bloom who then change the temperature dynamics to include the ability of the sea to absorb, sore and convect heat in its system. In addition to this it has been shown that the increase in algae in areas rich in iron concentration sin the oceans, have a marked effect on the levels of C02 being taken out of the atmosphere. As these simple cells than take in the carbon, and as they die they lay it on the ocean floor in their remains this carbon is then taken out of the system (as its not actually interacting within the system, not taken out like some human kinds acticity seems to do according to some) and locked away not to be released back into the atmosphere for eons as huge seismological and volcanoes effects are needed to liberate it. (wow again simple green little cells affecting the climate but humankind and all of industry does not? Lol) This is now actually been seriously considered as a technological solution mixed with living systems to global warming and research is being carried out. I read this in a peer reviewed paper recently the results of the experiment, of south America I believe however I cant remember exactly.

Any questions on more sources and if anyone is adamant I will dig out the relevant sources, though usually takes me a week or two to do.




posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well all this talk is well presented for both sides of the question, I have but a simple one..

around 1300 AD they were growing olives in Germany, how could this be? There were no Coal Plants then.


These are pretty much local variations. The MWP was warm, but it seems to not be as warm as now on a global scale. No-one suggests that only CO2 has the ability to affect climate, just that it can and does.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The only thing I want to say is that whilst I am in favour of protecting the environment (and ourselves) I am against the idea of man-made GW - sorry, it just doesn't wash.
And I say this as a person who has made massive lifestyle changes in the last few years (purely a personal decision based on the belief that we do harm our enivironment, with pollution, non bio-degradeable products, lack of energy efficiency etc), and as a member of greenpeace for over 15 years.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
And you can drown from too much water too melatonin...what is your point?...

Perhaps the scientists and people like yourself who claim CO2 is a pollutant should spent money on starting a space program to find a planet where there is no CO2.... maybe after you spend a couple days there and find no food whatsoever you might have a different view on CO2.....


Thank you for so perfectly demonstrating why debating the issue of global warming is becoming completely pointless. There are no fact, no rationality, no level headed debate. It's kini of like the debate over 9/11. Name calling, terrible logic, and stupidity abound.

Hey, Mauddib, too much oxygen can be poisonous. I guess according to your logic we should eliminate all oxygen, or perhaps search for a planet that is oxygen free. I couldn't imagine a more assanine arguement or accusation.

No one is stating that CO2 shouldn't exists. What we are talking about it balance, having the right amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not too much, not too little. No one said anything about none at all. It's unfortunate that this kind of vitriolic ignorance makes this yet another issue that we can no longer come to these boards to have a rational discussion about.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I hate to say this muad'dib, but the man has a point - did you just get carried away?




posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   
I don't think he did, but both sides do have their point, but when you dig down, it is really right to radically change mankind's standard of living on a guess?



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
................
No doubt you'll argue that the high CO2 levels at that time were a consequence of the higher temps, not a cause.

But if so, how come current CO2 levels are today 30% higher than during recent periods - such as the Holocene Climatic Optimum (Hypsithermal) c8,000 years ago - in when global temps were warmer? Surely then CO2 levels should have been higher than today?


There are many natural factors that affect the Climate, and there are also many natural factors which affect how much CO2 is released in the atmosphere.

The geological record has shown us that temperatures can increase irrespective of how high the CO2 levels are.

Even thou it is true that in general during warming events more trace gases are released naturally, hence there should be higher CO2 levels, it is also true that during warming events we don't always have all the same natural factors causing this warming, hence we don't have the same effects in all warming, or even cooling events.


Originally posted by Essan
But what happens if the temp does not change but a lot more CO" s suddenly released into the atmosphere? Say, as result of a clathrate gun going off (methane hydrate release)? The extra CO2 increases the greenhouse effect and causes global warming. Until such time as natural systems return things back to normal.


A 0.01% increase in CO2 in 150 years, whic was not only anthropogenic, is not a lot. It is a small increase. During past deglaciation periods CO2 levels have increase 100ppm or 0.01% in less than 150 years at times when there were no SUVs, or factories.



Originally posted by Essan
But how do we know that had it not been for the increase CO2 (where did it come from? Volcanoes maybe?) that the ice age of the time wouldn't have been even more severe? Maybe the CO2 caused the ice age to come to an end? (Remember for the Ordovician we're talking accuracy of dates to 'within a few million years' - and the current period of glaciations have only been going on for less than 3 million years)


Except for the fact that CO2 levels has always lagged temperature changes.


Originally posted by Essan
Besides, if CO2 follows temperature, how can CO2 increase during an ice age?


Because there could be factors that happened in some Ice Ages which wouldn't have affected temperatures much but would have affected those factors which increase or decrease CO2 levels.

CO2 levels have lagged temperature changes from 80 years or so, to 800 years. In the current Climate Change/Global Warming CO2 levels only began to increase after 260 years of constant warming throughout the world.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
.............
wELL DONE MATE VOICE OF MODERATION AND WISDOM AMOUNGST THE SPIN AND LIES.... anyhow


Spin and lies of who?... Would you care to point out what lies you are talking about?

Do you have any real evidence to provide or do you just think that by only giving your opinion without any evidence you have proved something?...



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
To be honest cant be bothered to discuss with the same people who always quote the same research which is dubiously based and have a personal agenda of some type.


Really?.... Actually that is only the excuse those who can't debate the science because they don't know it always claim...



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
I just cant understand many posters who try and use the "look at what these (usually Exxon funded) guys have to say.


That's just a claim noy based in fact....



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
No over a very long period from that point as evolution took over and living organisms started evolving different respiration (at a cell level) responses to the environment and slowly very slowly lots and lots and lots of generations of these living things changed our atmosphere from one that had hardly any Oxygen in it to one that is composed now of around a 20 ish percent oxygen level.


Could you please try to summarize what you are trying to say?


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
So since when did humans stop being a factor.


Humans have been around for less than 0.00000000001% of the time that Earth has existed, other organisms have been around a lot longer than we have and exist in quantities much larger than humans, even when we are 6 billion people right now.

The main claim by those scientists who say mankind is causing Global Warming/Climate Change say it is because of anthropogenic CO2, yet anthropogenic and natural released CO2 has increased 0.01% in 150 years, and that is not a change that would cause the current warming, more so when CO2 levels did not increase until about 260 years after temperatures have been increasing during the current warming.


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Lets look for another thing causing it, like Einstein said

“lets change the facts to fit the theory”


I can actually turn that around and say that is exactly what people like yourself are doing.... There are several natural factors happening now which haven't happened for a long time and we know for a fact they cause Climate Change, and since the current warming started well before CO2 levels were increasing the obvious conclusion is that anthropogenic CO2 is not what has been causing the current warming. But there are people who want to claim "it is all because of mankind"...

BTW, noone has been able to prove 100% that mankind is causing or caused the current Climate Change/Global Warming.

There have been quite a few times in the history of science that the "scientific concensus" was 90% sure of one theory, and they were later proven to be 100% wrong...

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
continued from previous page

because people believed the spin from a few not the facts from the experts like the IAEA and Hans Blick. Scarely this is much more of a risk and issue to our safety and security than he could have ever been.


What the hell does that have anything to do with this topic?...

That's just a red herring and nothing more....

Discuss the facts about this topic instead of trying to derail the topic....



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion

Thank you for so perfectly demonstrating why debating the issue of global warming is becoming completely pointless. There are no fact, no rationality, no level headed debate. It's kini of like the debate over 9/11. Name calling, terrible logic, and stupidity abound.


Well then you should think twice before you start making the name calling and insults, because as I recall your first response and insults....



Originally posted by Athenion
Hey, Mauddib, too much oxygen can be poisonous. I guess according to your logic we should eliminate all oxygen, or perhaps search for a planet that is oxygen free. I couldn't imagine a more assanine arguement or accusation.


The EPA has named CO2 as a pollutant, and there are members who are agreeing with the EPA claim which is why I made that statement...



Originally posted by Athenion
No one is stating that CO2 shouldn't exists. What we are talking about it balance, having the right amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not too much, not too little. No one said anything about none at all. It's unfortunate that this kind of vitriolic ignorance makes this yet another issue that we can no longer come to these boards to have a rational discussion about.


Balance according to who's definition?... Your definition of balance?... You think Earth will follow your definition of balance?...

There is no such thing as "balance"...the Earth's climate changes, and these changes have many times brought the extinction of many species...

Are you going to try to stop every natural factor because you want the Earth to stay in what you call a "balanced state"?....

That is a truly irrational, assanine argument and only shows "vitriolic ignorance"....

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, don't expect respect when you don't offer none...

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The EPA has named CO2 as a pollutant, and there are members who are agreeing with the EPA claim which is why I made that statement...


Yes, they have, because we are pumping excessive amounts of CO2 into the environment. Just like mercury, a naturally occuring element, if pumped into the environment at high levels, is considered a pollutant. If we were creating so much oxygen it was killing the environment, then oxygen would be listed as a pollutant as well. I guess the concept of moderation is beyond you, and only extremes, either all or none, is reality.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Balance according to who's definition?... Your definition of balance?... You think Earth will follow your definition of balance?...

There is no such thing as "balance"...the Earth's climate changes, and these changes have many times brought the extinction of many species...

Are you going to try to stop every natural factor because you want the Earth to stay in what you call a "balanced state"?....


Balance in the sense of what nature has in mind, not what humans are adding on top of nature's already violent cycles. No we're not going to try and stop every natural factor, nor are we trying to stop global warming altogether. I don't know how many more times I can say it, but what we want to do is reverse the small amount that humans are adding on top of the already heating environment. You know, stop making it worse than it's already going to be. Is that really such a difficult concept to understand? So instead of ignoring what we're saying by using non-arguements like "Go find a planet with no CO2" or, "You really think nature cares about your opinion", why don't you start listening to what we're saying?


Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, in case you haven't noticed, don't expect respect when you don't offer none...


Likewise. Save the self rightous indignation for someone else. It's very clear to any outside observer that you seem to be the one incapable of level headed debate.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion
..................
If we were creating so much oxygen it was killing the environment, then oxygen would be listed as a pollutant as well. I guess the concept of moderation is beyond you, and only extremes, either all or none, is reality.


The Earth has had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and life was plentyful....

I guess the concept that the Earth has had CO2 levels at 4,000 to 4,400 ppm, right now it is 380ppm, and there was abundant life is "beyond you"....

An increase of 0.01% CO2 over 150 years is not "excessive"... The Earth has have CO2 levels change as much as during the present Climate Change, but at a faster rate and mankind was not around.



Originally posted by Athenion
Balance in the sense of what nature has in mind, not what humans are adding on top of nature's already violent cycles.


So you know what the Earth has in mind? Since the levels of CO2 we have been adding "already existed on Earth" we have not added antyhing that didn't exist before.


Originally posted by Athenion
I don't know how many more times I can say it, but what we want to do is reverse the small amount that humans are adding on top of the already heating environment.


Since the Earth has had higher levels of CO2 and there was no "excessive heating" and since there are several natural factors occurring now which do change the climate and are causing heating not only on Earth, I don't know what makes you think you or anyone can stop or mitigate "Climate Change".

What plans do you have in mind agreeing with the Kyoto protocol?...



Originally posted by Athenion
You know, stop making it worse than it's already going to be. Is that really such a difficult concept to understand? So instead of ignoring what we're saying by using non-arguements like "Go find a planet with no CO2" or, "You really think nature cares about your opinion", why don't you start listening to what we're saying?


Is it such a difficult concept to understand that an increase of 0.01% CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause such major changes? It is only a matter of opinion to believe that such an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere would produce warming. We don't understand the Earth's atmosphere as much as some would like to claim....

For example, methane levels have been leveling for some reason that noone can understand even though the human race has continued building rice fields and other sources of methane gas.

The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming comes from computer proxies, guesstimates which have been proven wrong in the past, which are using flawed data...

The observation of the geological record which proves the Earth has had higher levels of CO2 and there were no "Climate Changes for a long while and the fact that CO2 levels have been both high and low during Ice Ages, and it has also been both high and low during warming events does not prove that CO2 levels change the Climate on Earth.

The total amount of anthropogenic CO2 is 3% of all sources, while the rest of the 97% is natural CO2 which occurs through decay and the other natural factors which control CO2 levels.

We are told that humans are adding to an overflowing bucket, or some other nonsense, but the fact is that there is no such treshold on the Earth's atmosphere since the geological record has shown us higher levels of CO2 have existed on Earth's atmosphere while life was thriving and temperatures did not vary much from the present.



Originally posted by Athenion
Likewise. Save the self rightous indignation for someone else. It's very clear to any outside observer that you seem to be the one incapable of level headed debate.


This is funny coming from someone who didn't start the discussion by making a "level headed debate"... and now such person seems to be claiming he knows what "the Earth has in mind"...

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
This will likely be my last response, simply because this is an exhausting conversation. I'm sure you feel the same way.


Originally posted by Muaddib
The Earth has had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and life was plentyful....

I guess the concept that the Earth has had CO2 levels at 4,000 to 4,400 ppm, right now it is 380ppm, and there was abundant life is "beyond you"....

An increase of 0.01% CO2 over 150 years is not "excessive"... The Earth has have CO2 levels change as much as during the present Climate Change, but at a faster rate and mankind was not around.


Here, once again, is where the logic is flawed. Yes, CO2 levels where higher, but what you're not factoring in is the other greenhouse gasses, such as methane. To clarify, show me the data that states that the Methane, Water Vapor, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone, and all the other greenhouse gases where at the exact same levels as they are right now, but CO2 was higher, and the temperature was unaffected.

You can't, and that's the major flaw in your arguement. You act as if there is only one gas that effects temperature, which is not the case. i know you are aware of this fact, but then your argumenets are based off of this assumption.

I don't know the exact ratio relationship between CO2 and Methane, but for the sake of arguement let's say it's 2 to 1. So every 2 CO2 particles has the same environmental heating impact as 1 methane particle. Again, just made up numbers, but this kind of mathematical relationship must exist.

So if you have 200,000 particles of methane, that's equal to 400,000 particles of CO2, So if we compare two different potential environments,

Low Mathane (50,000 particles), High CO2 (200,000 particles)
And
Low CO2 (100,000 particles), High Methane (100,000 particles)

We end up with the same net effect on the invironment, and the same global temperature. That's why your arguement is completely flawed logic, and doesn't disprove that CO2 has an effect on the invironment. It is one of many factors, and it is the mitigating factor that Humans are most directly contributing to. So to say that because CO2 levels where higher, but temperature was lower, is simply a non-arguement, because you're subtracting out all other factors.

This is why I challenged you in other threads to find a peer reviewed scientific paper purporting that CO2 does not have an effect on global warming, not a paper showing CO2 levels where high while temperatures where low. Junk science is junk science. I'm still waiting on that paper (here's a hint: you won't find one).

I hope this finally helps you realize why your arguement just doesn't work. I know it's a crude analogy, but it demonstrates my point.


Originally posted by Muaddib
So you know what the Earth has in mind? Since the levels of CO2 we have been adding "already existed on Earth" we have not added antyhing that didn't exist before.


Yea, it's really not that hard to figure out. It's a pretty simple mathematical equation. You take current environment, subtract human polution and influence, and you get what nature had in mind.

Real World - Human influence = Nature

Not to complex I hope.

But again, per your logic, why not flood the environment with Mercury? it's existed in nature before, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, right?



[edit on 10-4-2007 by Athenion]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

The Earth has had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and life was plentyful....



What about the co2 data taken from ice core samples in Antartica?

Those records show that we are now living in unprecedented times, as far as high co2 levels are concerned.

Can you prove this data of yours? The ice doesn't lie.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
you might ask a few questions before taking every single bit as the gospel.


first off, what do you think are the requirements for reliable gas retention within ice? hint: it's below 0°C and these conditions are not stricltly met, of course, seeing as glaciers are undergoing constant temperature changes every year inclduing partial melting. liquid water will of course ruin the test's fidelity and every layer is initially exposed. at any rate, relying on a single kind samples is daring if not unscientific.


secondly, a few hundred throusand years are not quite the whole story, because it's a) usually believed that the primordial atmosphere conisted mainly of carbon dioxide and that b) that plants once grew larger, indicating higher CO2 concentrations. more data is always a good thing and i assert that the graphs have been cropped to maintain the AGW paradigm.

www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk...

runaway warming did not happen then it won't and can't happen now, because a gas' spectral lines are quickly saturated, at concetrations below a percent, and more will make less and less of a difference in terms of greenhouse effect.


PS: how many global warmng threads do we need ?



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics


Inter esting link for the doomsayers

Notice its a US Senate site.....oh the screams from the left...



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I hate to tell everyone but your arguing over the colour of the elephant in the room
What really matters is that its happening.
nothing else.
We need to switch energy usage either way...so its a no brainer.
Go green and plan for the future
its gonna be hot



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by win 52

What about the co2 data taken from ice core samples in Antartica?

Those records show that we are now living in unprecedented times, as far as high co2 levels are concerned.

Can you prove this data of yours? The ice doesn't lie.


And the data from ice cores tells us that Earth has had higher concentrations of CO2 in the past, yet it never became like Venus, or Mars, and life existed on Earth just fine.

I have already given several sources to back my statements. PLease read back what we have been discussing if you are actually interested in the subject.

The CO2 levels on Earth right now are at about 0.038% of all atmospheric gases, that is a concentration of 380 ppm of CO2. The Earth has had CO2 levels at 0.4% and even 0.7% as total amount of gases in Earth's atmosphere in the past, and that is a concentration of 4,000 to 7,000 ppm CO2 on it's atmosphere, yet there was no "runaway Global Warming", and during most of those times animal life and flora thrived on Earth.

Yet there are some scientists, and people, who would swear up and down that the 0.01% increase of CO2, part of which is anthropogenic but not in the amounts some are claiming, that Earth has had increased in the last 200 years is "bad, and if there is a doubling of CO2 levels it will be catastrophic, but the evidence from the past says the contrary.

A doubling of CO2 will not be catastrophic, there will be changes. But Change is a constant on this planet.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglelord

We need to switch energy usage either way...so its a no brainer.



So you willing to give up your car? Your electricity usage? Your heat in the winter or AC in the summer?

Energy usage has not been PROVEN to be the cause, which is the whole point, if it is not the cause, then change will only hurt mankind.

Sure I am for alternative sources of energy, but not ones that make no financial sense. I mean are we really out of oil? What amount is really in Alaska? The Gulf of Mexico?

I like hybrids for sure but until the batteries are cheap enough to justify not using gasoline, it makes no sense for me to spend extra dollars on some cause that may be complete bullpuckey.



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
A doubling of CO2 will not be catastrophic, there will be changes. But Change is a constant on this planet.


While this is true, you act as if there's no difference between change that's beneficial to humanity, and change that's immensley harmful.

Don't you think we ought to try and mitigate the disasters, and seek the beneficial? Or should we just stick our heads in the sand and say sing que sera sera?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join