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.

 

Why Climate Change is Worse Than We Thought

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Syyth007

The earth is what? 6 Billion years old (give or take). And that's not counting the folks who think its only 6K years.

How many dominant species have there been, do you think?

And how many dominant species will there be after we're gone?

I'm thinking zombie apocalypse.




posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

Weather is the current state of the atmosphere in explicit state and time - climate is the general atmospheric condition of an area over a "long" period of time.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: beezzer

Indeed, man is a narcissistic species, but I'd argue our insignificance on overall biological life of this planet - we are the most dominant advanced species on this planet for a reason - our ability to exploit resources to support the advancement of our population is unparalleled in the natural kingdom. We have unleashed unseen forces on this planet - If modern society was to collapse, what do you think would happen to the 450+ known nuclear reactors dotted around the globe? What effect would those unattended reactors have on biological life? It takes massive resources, and much time to safely decommission a nuclear reactor.

If not properly decommissioned, an unattended nuclear reactor will eventually result in a nuclear chain reaction - which would hive dire consequences on all biological life - not to mention the numerous nuclear/industrial waste "holding" and processing sites that would contaminate the local environment, that would not be conducive to any biological life.


That is one of the most overlooked aspects of modern life.

Not what would become of dog if man just disappeared.

What kind of hell would we unleash by systems that require man to maintain in the absence of man.

We would sure cause some evolution with all that radioactive waste.

Not necessarily good evolution either.

Well from the universes view, all evolution is good, even the bad kind.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick




I want to debate the science.


Cool then I hope you can answer some questions pertaining to your facts.




Fact co2 even factors higher has never once caused out of control warming.


How long ago was that? What kind of life inhabited the earth at that time and was solar irradiance higher or lower during that period?



Fact the co2 we are releasing was stored away in the most prolific existence of life on this planet.


Was that C02 stored from before or after the Great Permian Extinction? That is really important to know where that c02 originated.



Fact since it has been trapped underground the world went from tropical paradise to nonstop ice ages.


Wasn't that tropical paradise also one land mass called Pangea which was before the lands migrated (continental drift) with plate tectonics to the poles which were colder and allowed for ice ages?

Saying Antartica was once a lush forest is shocking until you realize it was also attached to Austraila back then.



Fact plants need more co2 , at present they are in a famine.


I am pretty sure that is not a fact. If you can show some scientific studies evidencing they are in famine then you may have something.



Care to discuss these known facts?


Yup this is a start.
edit on 21-7-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

There have been numerous dominant species other then humans - yet there haven't been any species that has came anywhere close to our ability of resource exploitation then those in our past - there have been species (and still are species) that are more numerous in numbers then our population, but we require VAST more amounts, and more varied resources then any other species on this planet by a ridiculous amount.

What other species requires fossil fuels for propagation? The resources required for an individual human is infinitely more then any other species - and our numbers have been increasing exponentially for 150 years or so, and our resource consumption has been rising exponentially. We are doomed if we continue as we have been - if we want to survive as a species, something has to change - and soon. And most advanced biological life on this planet may depend on that change.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greven

I'll caveat (for the moment) that man-made climate change is happening and we're all going to die next week, Thursday.

.


Sorry Beezzer, but I have to disagree.

Sept. 24th, 2015 is the day we are all going to die.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Don't waste you breath. Just ignore the ignorance and childishness.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: JacKatMtn

Weather is the current state of the atmosphere in explicit state and time - climate is the general atmospheric condition of an area over a "long" period of time.


So what cannot be accurately predicted by science tomorrow (weather) should not diminish the crystal clarity of science's ability to predict in the distant future (climate).. I think I have it now.. thanks.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

Not really - I know people like to bitch about the lack of absolute accurate weather prediction, but it's not anywhere as easy as the laymen would like to believe. There are numerous factors that enter a weather prediction, and those are based on TRENDS (ie patterns that have occurred in the past) there is a reason a % is usually connected to a local weather prediction.

Again, with climate, the predictions are based on TRENDS (data patterns, data collected from past "climate" [long term weather] data)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: johnwick




I want to debate the science.


Cool then I hope you can answer some questions pertaining to your facts.




Fact co2 even factors higher has never once caused out of control warming.


How long ago was that? What kind of life inhabited the earth at that time and was solar irradiance higher or lower during that period?



Fact the co2 we are releasing was stored away in the most prolific existence of life on this planet.


Was that C02 stored from before or after the Great Permian Extinction? That is really important to know where that c02 originated.



Fact since it has been trapped underground the world went from tropical paradise to nonstop ice ages.


Wasn't that tropical paradise also one land mass called Pangea which was before the lands migrated with plate tectonics to the poles which were colder and allowed for ice ages?



Fact plants need more co2 , at present they are in a famine.


I am pretty sure that is not a fact. If you can show some scientific studies evidencing they are in famine then you may have something.



Care to discuss these known facts?


Yup this is a start.


It is a start.

We gotta start every trip with a minimum and maximum of one step.

Step one, it would be nice to just throw out a date like 2billion years ago, but in the expanse of that much time we honestly couldn't do it even if we wanted.

The Permian extinction was when the earth was old, but life was young, it was the single greatest explosion and extinction of life known to man at present. ( correct me if I am wrong, didn't want to cheat and google it, that is bad form in my book)

That is when the tree of life branched out into its many differing forms.

Fed almost entirely by co2 and sulfates if I remember correctly.

Solar radiance....... I would love to say, but that is an unknown.

We think we know, but that is a unknown quantity, I don't like to presume, we honestly just don't know. We guess as best we can but....
I couldn't respond to this honestly because at present it is beyond our ability to accurately say.

Farmers inject co2 into greenhouses, they have for decades now.

Take any plant and "clone" it. This involves taking a clipping, usually a limb, and cutting it at approximately 45 degrees. You then depending on the species either place the cut end in a cloning block(fancy name for root making compound) or in water with root growing compounds. ( this is species specific, some require neither others can't grow roots without the compounds).

Now you have 2 of the exact same plant.

Place one outside, we will assume it has a perfect environment.

Place the other in a co2 enriched enclosure, we will assume it has a less than optimal environment.

Which grows faster bigger and bares the most fruit?

The co2 enhanced even under less than optimal conditions always outstrips its co2 starved compatriot every single time.

Just google plants co2 growing, there are billions being made just off co2.

And for very good reasons, it works every single time.

That is why giant dinosaur lived.

Bigger faster growing plants, because of higher co2 levels.

Pangea was not the whole of the prehistoric paradise, even after the breakup life flourished in tropical paradise for hundreds of millions of years.

I didn't quite get your meaning there, plz elaborate further for clarity.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JacKatMtn

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: JacKatMtn

Weather is the current state of the atmosphere in explicit state and time - climate is the general atmospheric condition of an area over a "long" period of time.


So what cannot be accurately predicted by science tomorrow (weather) should not diminish the crystal clarity of science's ability to predict in the distant future (climate).. I think I have it now.. thanks.



The irony of it all...... I just love it, nonstop enjoyment!!!

I don't know what will happen in the next few days beyond it will or won't rain, and can't tell you the accurate temp 5 days from now, but I can without a doubt tell you in 30 years X temp and weather will occur with 100 percent accuracy.

Even though tomorrow's weather is about a trillion times simpler to factor than decades on climate.


Yaaaahhhh, rrriiiggghhbtt........



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick




but I can without a doubt tell you in 30 years X temp and weather will occur with 100 percent accuracy.
Are you claiming that climatologists say such a thing?
Can you provide a single example?


edit on 7/22/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Syyth007

My question to you is whether its tomorrow or 50 years from now, what's the percentage of success?

Is it a flip of the coin, or a guarantee?

We already know what we ( humans) do now that are a detriment to the planet, and have plenty of opportunity to tone that down...

Why aren't we doing more now, knowing as we do, that science cannot tell us what's going to happen with anywhere close to confirmation percentage...

What's the hold up? the science? or the revenue stream some folks have lined up for?

Recently saw an effort by the folks at MSU to use skyscrapers as a solar energy collector, their claim is that each building could run itself via solar windows.... If true, let's start there... most of the larger cities consume most of the electrcity.. how awesome would it be that each 80 floor building in those congested masses of humanity could fuel themselves via the sun?

I know the climate changes, all you have to do is look at the history... I just want more action to reduce the human impact as a variable, without trying to scare folks into accepting more taxes because the very few want to make some dough off of what should be a non profit deal...

that's my beef... we know what is before us, we know what issues we have caused, and most of have already adjusted our lives to be friendlier to our home, just don't shove some carbon tax deal on us to show us the gov't and their palm greasers have once again found a way to reach into my pocket and take my $$ for their benefit...

It may work on the latest generation, but I have been there done that since I started filling those coffers in the late 70's...

Beware... when the Gov't is selling.... don't BUY!



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Wow, you got completely pwned by Grimps there. We now know you got nothing at all. It was pretty obvious, but ... wow, man. Nothing.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

I think you figured out that I already knew the answers so I will give them to you.

Solar "irradiance" was lower back when co2 levels were higher. According to scientists. And that was about 444 million years ago about 200 million years before Dinosaurs roamed the earth. Pretty much all animal life was in the sea and fauna was very primitive.

The Permian extinction has been attributed to a super volcano the basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia wich poured out toxic gasses which included sulfates. Unfortunately, most critters died especially those with mammalian traits. Those poor little lungs just couldn't take it and anything bigger than a meerkat didn't have a chance. BTW the evolving Dinos had a big advantage with their respiratory system over mammals that may explain why mammals during that era were pretty much the size of mice.

Pangea began to break up about 200 million years ago so those continents still enjoyed warmer climates up until they drifted far enough away. Things have been pretty close to what they are now for about 60 million years.

As far as plants we know higher co2 levels will promote faster growth we also know too much will have adverse reactions, but neither of those thigs have much to do with your statement that the plants are famished for co2.

If you can show a study or scientific articles that would go towards evidencing your claim.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I prefer the 'voice in the wilderness' climate depot, that news blog gives all the latest reports, for and against, makes very interesting reading.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: SPECULUM
The planet will always readjust, whether we Survive or not

There's the question then - do you wish to see humanity survive?

People say this all the time, that it will carry on... as if we do nothing to this world. That we do not dig holes visible from space (we do). That we do not alter the rotation of the planet (we have). That what we do does not matter (it does).

What is your end logic here - that we should not do anything? You vastly underestimate humanity.


Not at all. Change is inevitable. Change will happen. We need to Adapt, improvise, overcome. As we always have in the past when things changed. At this point, who's to blame is a stupid thing to worry about. I plan to work on a 25 year window, buy some beach property a few miles from the coast, and wait for it to become ocean front, then cash in.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: beezzer

Political solutions won't "fix" the problem. I don't know anyone who actually understands the problem who thinks a carbon tax will fix anything - just because politicians are willing to exploit a problem for revenue generation does not make that problem invalid - that is what is known, commonly, as a straw man argument, and it is a common logical fallacy.

But, climate change is but one symptom of a much larger sickness - it's the fever that accompanies the flu, to use a bad analogy. Modern society is completely reliant upon exponential growth to survive - we need a growth in production/population, around .1% annually, to maintain the global society we have implemented.

Funny thing about exponential systems bound by finite resources - they're unsustainable.

There is an old proverb about exponential systems, where a "magi" helps a king with a problem, and his request for payment is thus: He presents a checkerboard, and asks that his payment be one grain of rice on the first square on the first day, two grains of rice on the second square on the the next day, four grains of rice on the third day, eight grains of rice on the fourth day, and so on, until he reaches the end of the board, and his debt would be paid - if he could not pay his debt, he would surrender his rule to the Magi.

The King had no foresight, and thought the magi a fool. He agreed to the deal believing he would have no problem supplying the rice required by the Magi - By the time he produced the rice for over half the board, the growth rate had increased from a few measly grains of rice into whole harvests, and was growing everyday, to the point that it was impossible to make the payment to the Magi well before the end of the board...



That's VERY interesting...



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
To create a more efficient system and one which is very low maintenance, I propose we go back to building pyramids or pyramid type structures. It is very sustainable and good for the environment.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

And just how do you know? Have you been around for thousands of years, to know earths cycles? Hmmm, has anyone?


Nope.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join