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.

 

Dangerous Feedback Loop From the Soil?! WTF?!

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Applause for you and Rickymouse (if I could)

Thank you for your latest comments and interesting conversation, you have taught me new aspects and different ways of thinking in both gardening, climate and chemistry.




posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Here is a new article I just found tonight. It shows that science did not know of the hydrogen out in the top of the thermosphere. There is a lot that science does not know, and I am sure what they are saying about CO2 and global warming is not the whole picture. NO2 compounds from corn gas are worse than CO2, but they don't mention that much. Methane from leaking oil fields also is worse than CO2 but they also tend not to mention that. They want to blame us, the consumer and make us pay a tax instead of fixing anything.

Here is the article. www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Instead of addressing the reality of the rising CO2 problem, you mention taxes....

Science does not care about taxes or political views.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: rickymouse

Instead of addressing the reality of the rising CO2 problem, you mention taxes....

Science does not care about taxes or political views.


I know, but governments are trying to capitalize on this event by collecting taxes yet they are not going to fix the problems. It is not economical to fix the problem, it would lower the GNP of most countries which in turn would decrease income for the governments.

We are caught in a loop alright, a deception loop.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

So you recognize CO2(and CH4 among other things) are a problem but you think addressing said problem(s) is bad for the economy so we should not attemp to fix the problems?

This will result in future generations having a heavy burden as a result of an irresponsible society stuck on turning profits.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I think we should fix the problem. I believe we are messing up our environment, look at my other posts. The money the governments are proposing to collect with taxation is not going to be used to fix the problem. To fix the problem we need to lower emissions, not tax emmissions. They should outlaw planned obsolescence and death dating of products and shift production back to the USA where we have more stringent environmental laws than China. We waste things way too much, Humans are trashing this world and that has to stop. Taxing people and doing nothing does not solve the problem, if that tax actually was used properly, it would not be a problem but I saw no reduction of production or lowering of people flying around the world.

The governments are going to use this money to promote more spending and increase production of new environmental friendly products to sell.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Science may not care about taxation, but governments operating under propagandized science do.

If carbon dioxide is a real problem, we already have proven technology that scrubs carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. If carbon dioxide is a real problem, we could simply stop cutting the rainforests to help control it. If carbon dioxide is a real problem, we could seed the oceans with algae, turning the excess into food.

But we don't do that. No, we want to pay higher taxes for energy, increasing the burden on the poor and increasing the number living below poverty. We want to make it more expensive for businesses to exist here, removing jobs and increasing entitlement rolls.

You keep trying to separate science from politics, in the same breath you quote propaganda from politics. As we used to say 'round these here parts, "That dog don't hunt."

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

That is an interesting read, and something I had not heard of before. I'll have to check out the journals when I have time for the actual paper. I'm not surprised they found H+ to be honest; it makes sense considering the constant cosmic barrage of energy and matter our upper atmosphere receives.

It also highlights how incomplete our actual knowledge base really is.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: lostbook

If global warming oops climate change is real.

NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
www.nasa.gov...

Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years
cnsnews.com...


You know, if they looked up and realized that the Sun itself has been acting strangely, and that at the same time the warming seems to have slowed down, lo and behold the Sun's activity was lowering, except it's visible light which for some "unexplained reason" had been increasing, maybe they'll understand what is going on with the "lost temperature". We know the sun hasn't done this in past events and the only thing new to this era is the new region of the local bubble our solar system is moving into.

GCMs (Global Circulation Models) have been found to be wrong time and again, yet only the "belief" of the AGW camp has allowed the use of GCMs to continue to scare people that "evil mankind is causing climate change" when the whole solar system is undergoing changes, and we see planets and moons with an atmosphere not only changing in climate but warming at the same time Earth has been warming. But the AGW camp decide to ignore this and keep blaming "evil mankind" just so the globalists have an excuse to impose more draconian laws and control every aspect of people's lives. That's what is at stake if people continue to believe in the farce that AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming) is. This farce is about control and power over people.



edit on 12-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: rickymouse

Instead of addressing the reality of the rising CO2 problem, you mention taxes....

Science does not care about taxes or political views.


You wouldn't know science if it slapped you in the face and called you "daddy".

The reality of CO2, when CO2 levels in the last 18 years have increased by 39ppm yet CO2 levels FAILED to increase temperatures by ~0.4 degrees?...

People like you have been continuously claiming "CO2 levels increase so it must be CO2 causing the warming", but you fail to understand that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it doesn't mean it causes the increase in temperatures you claim it does... More so when GCMs have been wrong the whole time and "nature and the universe" keeps trying to show you who is boss.

IMO, a lot of people keep believing that "mankind is the cause of Climate Change" because they would be horrified to admit they have no control over what happens to the Earth, it's climate and it's geology.

The Earth is changing. The entire solar system is changing. Even the sun is changing and acting strangely, but somehow it cannot be the entire power of the galaxy causing these changes on Earth, it "has to be mankind"...

To quote another member, deep down inside the AGW camp are "control freaks".


edit on 12-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There is a theory I have been working on to more completely explain gravity/inertia. It explains dark matter/energy as a consequence of gravitational 'currents' that exist in various areas of space, probably due to interactions between electrical and magnetic fields.

A side consequence of these gravitational/inertial models is that it is conceivable that the gravitational constant is not completely constant; anomalies can account for slight local disturbances in the gravitational constant. If the gravitational constant changes slightly, the relationship between energy and frequency of EM waves also changes slightly. In simple terms, it may be possible for the area of space we are entering to affect the frequency spectrum of stars in that area of space.

One possible explanation for the phenomena you describe.

One day, I'll get enough time to finish my calcs...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think he (Florida) and I (NC) have heard that saying, that being said, this dog will hunt: the lack of consideration of water vapor's role in the greenhouse effect. CO2 gets all the run in the press but it ain't the only culprit. Water vapor's contribution is significant. Maybe much more significant than CO2.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Water vapor is orders of magnitude more potent at reflecting energy, both in terms of quality and quantity. It's just harder to convince people that water vapor will kill them than that carbon dioxide will.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Water vapor is orders of magnitude more potent at reflecting energy, both in terms of quality and quantity.


Not orders of magnitude.


It's just harder to convince people that water vapor will kill them than that carbon dioxide will.

TheRedneck


The physics is different, because the time water stays in the atmosphere is around 2 weeks vs decades to centuries with CO2, and there are large oceans. Water vapor and clouds are feedbacks, not drivers in the climatic sense: remove all water from the atmosphere and it would come back in 2-4 weeks. Saturate all of the atmosphere, and it would return to normal in 2-4 weeks. Not so with CO2: experimental fact. Obviously the scientists were aware of the greenhouse effect of water vapor decades ago and take it into account in all climate modeling as a central component.

Without water vapor in the atmosphere, Earth would be a frozen snowball: all white, no plants, no animals, nothing but minor microbial life.
edit on 13-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


Not orders of magnitude.

Water vapor concentration varies from a trace to a little over 4%. 4% is two orders of magnitude above 0.04%.

The contribution of water vapor to a 'greenhouse effect' compared to carbon dioxide is even greater, primarily due to the different bonding energies in the two compounds.


The physics is different, because the time water stays in the atmosphere is around 2 weeks vs decades to centuries with CO2, and there are large oceans.

Water vapor is always present. Molecules do not need time to get comfortable before acting like molecules.

Remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and we will be looking at a climate disaster. Plant life would become extinct and, should animals survive that catastrophe, they would soon exhale enough carbon dioxide to actually conform to the crazy predictions floating around.

It is statements like the one you just made that truly scare me. Statements that ignore reality in favor of some fantasy proposed by poli-science-titions, that could potentially become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Please do not mess with my air. It's breathable now.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
They have a list of these supposed end all feedback loops. If it were so direly delicate then there'd be all manner of extreme swings across the millenia. Yet, according to Al Gore, the climate hasn't changed hardly a lick for 400,000 years until man showed up.


The feedback loop they're really looking for is $ between carbon credits and the banks.
darkness carbon time



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: rickymouse

Instead of addressing the reality of the rising CO2 problem, you mention taxes....

Science does not care about taxes or political views.


You wouldn't know science if it slapped you in the face and called you "daddy".

The reality of CO2, when CO2 levels in the last 18 years have increased by 39ppm yet CO2 levels FAILED to increase temperatures by ~0.4 degrees?...

People like you have been continuously claiming "CO2 levels increase so it must be CO2 causing the warming", but you fail to understand that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it doesn't mean it causes the increase in temperatures you claim it does... More so when GCMs have been wrong the whole time and "nature and the universe" keeps trying to show you who is boss.

IMO, a lot of people keep believing that "mankind is the cause of Climate Change" because they would be horrified to admit they have no control over what happens to the Earth, it's climate and it's geology.

The Earth is changing. The entire solar system is changing. Even the sun is changing and acting strangely, but somehow it cannot be the entire power of the galaxy causing these changes on Earth, it "has to be mankind"...

To quote another member, deep down inside the AGW camp are "control freaks".

the earth is the universe. i know it on a very intimate level. It does not even know mankind is here. Shows how arrogant man really is huh. Does not even know you're here.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join