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.

 

Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Influential358
Does anyone here even know the soon-to-be leading cause of greenhouse global warming? Cattle farming.

So for today's lesson in physics, we learn that Methane gas (CH4) is a much more potent product and 15 times more potent at trapping the heat radiated from the sun than Carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane gas, however not as predominate as carbon dioxide is in our atmosphere, is by unit, more destructive. Cattle farms equate for 30% of methane gas emissions. Each cow, on average, releases 40 gallons of methane a day.

That's one aspect. Now lets look at the amount of deforestation to create grazing lands for cattle. On average, a matured tree can absorb up to 45 pounds of CO2 a year. In the Amazon alone, 80% of the deforestation that took place was for cattle grazing. (continue)

For argument sake, the Amazon rain forest is 2 million Sq. miles. 20% of the Amazon has been deforested. Of that 20%, 80% of it is for cattle grazing. That means 320,000 Sq. miles of trees have been cut for cattle farming. It's a vicious circle. Cut the trees that absorb CO2 emissions, and replace them with cattle that emit methane which is more harmful than the CO2 the trees were originally absorbing.

But lets continue.

The average cow adult cow weighs approximately 1,500 pounds. During it's entire lifespan, it will consume 441 gallons of water per pound. So that is a whopping 661,500 gallons of water per life cycle. Even though the large majority of the Earth is blue, clean and safe drinking water is a scarcity, something we in the west take for granted every single day. We forget that wars are fought over water rights. We forget that people have to lug urns and pots for miles to supply their family with daily water.

But my point is, fixing that leaky faucet, or stopping that drip from your hose bib outside wont do much to solve the issue. No more than you choosing a Prius (which emits 100+g/km of CO2) over a Ferrari (which emits 400+g/km of CO2).



I'm wondering if you are a vegan?




posted on May, 21 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
This is good!

We'll finally find all those secret Nazi / alien bases and crashed ships down there!

Oh, and the secret pyramids too!



For some reason I am interested in seeing the results of the caps melting for the same reasons. who knows, it really may be man made climate change thanks to chem trails and whatnot. maybe the hidden purpose was to find hidden technology ?

Just throwing the theory out there. Food for a thought.
edit on st2017000000Sundayst000000Sun, 21 May 2017 11:21:21 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoSun, 21 May 2017 11:21:21 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Influential358
Not everyone was born yesterday.

Methane (CH4) has narrow absorption bands at 3.3 microns and 7.5 microns (the red lines). CH4 is 20 times more effective an absorber than CO2 – in those bands. However, CH4 is only 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Moreover, both of its bands occur at wavelengths where H2O is already absorbing substantially. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O. The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O. The amount of CH4 must increase 100-fold to make it comparable to H2O.

Because of that, methane is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. The high per-molecule absorption cross section of CH4 makes no difference at all in our real atmosphere.

Unfortunately, this numerical reality is overlooked by most people. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, causing needless worry. The tiny increases in methane associated with cows may elicit a few giggles, but it absolutely cannot be the basis for sane regulations or national policy.

Link



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except the fact that Antarctica is actually gaining ice? You should have focused on the northern pole in an attempt to promote your global warming garbage.

link 1
link 2
link 3



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Scientists around the world agree

Not Necessarily
www.c3headlines.com...



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6
He's right though. Never understood why it matters if someone who has such a view has to be a Vegan or vegetarian.
I agree and am a Vegetarian(have been Vegan), now what?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Influential358

Guess we'll all just have to start eating mealworms...

Mealworms might seem unpalatable to many, but a new study indicates that they might be the climate-friendly protein alternative of the future

Not really, there are plenty of meat alternatives that aren't from animal specie sources.




posted on May, 22 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Influential358

Guess we'll all just have to start eating mealworms...

Mealworms might seem unpalatable to many, but a new study indicates that they might be the climate-friendly protein alternative of the future

Not really, there are plenty of meat alternatives that aren't from animal specie sources.

Cows work just fine. Rare.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I specified that the graph was created from the data from the team that took the Vostok Ice Core samples.

A simple internet search can initiate your reading of that topic, but I'll provide this link because it links to numerous summaries from articles and studies concerning the topic (all housed on their site): CO2 Science. I'm not vouching for that site at all, but I will note that it cites 13 sources, all from publications like "Science" and "Nature," amongst a few others. Don't disregard it, just read, because I could have provided a link to 100s of other online sites that accumulated similar data concerning the lag in CO2 versus Temperature change.

An excerpt:

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.


I only responded because you seemed to actually want the information.

Also, you can Google "Vostok Ice Core CO2 Temperature Graph" and get inundated with graphs created from this data that all show the same thing.




posted on May, 22 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Maybe the C02 increase in the atmosphere is cause as the planet heats up the C02 off gasses from the oceans.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
It's a plausible theory, but there's a lot more going on in the world concerning CO2 than it just being trapped in water and released. And even if it were released, the water vapor would have a much more dramatic effect on warming than the amount of CO2 that would come from the evaporation.

Also, understanding that (per our current understanding, anyhow) basically the entirety of the mass of a tree comes from the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, and you start realizing just how good CO2 can be for the environment, not nearly as alarmingly detrimental as many would have us believe.


I would argue that deforestation has a much larger effect on the rise in atmospheric CO2 than does the burning of fossil fuels (at least, the ability for it to stick around in the atmosphere).
edit on 22-5-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Nice share



originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Admiral Bird reported green land in Antarctica around a century ago.

I'm not denying climate change, just saying...

The Admiral to 1 has contributed some important information no matter how far-fetched it seems...



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Humans are more likely to destroy/hurt the planet by putting in drastic measures to attempt to prevent or reverse "man-made" climate change rather than just letting the planet go on its natural course.


So true. Chemtrails immediately spring to mind.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Would it be in the interest of mankind's conquest of the last continent... To intentfully cause global warming in order to have expidited access to the earth beneath the ice and mine it's minerals?
You'd think soooo.......
Arrg there be gold in them hills!

Also in 08' there was a western countries defense summit in New Zealand planning on how to defend new Zealand (the main Antarctic jump off post) from eastern intereststhat would compete with us militarily for the resources.
Obama s sent 5bill$ for defense aid after....
So yaknowww something's up.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: prevenge

Even if the IPCC worst case projections were to ensue, the icecap on Antartica is in no danger of melting.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join