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.

 

NASA Pinpoints Cause of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I never said to give up oil completely.
Use oil for things that matter. Use it wisely and more efficiently.




posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I never said to give up oil completely.
Use oil for things that matter. Use it wisely and more efficiently.


I didn't put those words in your mouth, so we are good there.

I am saying that if we are trying to impact human influences on AGW, then step 1 is to ask ourselves why we still use oil for everything? The answer is clear...its about money.

Or, in other words, the people we put in charge are willing to put economy over the survival of our species.

People argue online about it nonstop...but the answer lies with the people we elected. They are the point of action. So why do we have such a HUGE disincentive for stopping the use of oil for fuel? And how in the seven hells do we plan to overcome the hurdle of this disincentive without removing it altogether first?

In other words: its asinine to ask me to make any behavioral changes if the folks we put in charge can't even figure out how to incentivize me. Instead, they want to tax me. Screw that....life is not meant to be trampled on, and to scrimp and slave just so some overlords can go on business as usual.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Approx 25000 years ago the CO2 ramped up tremendously . This brought about a mini ice age that covered North America down to Dallas, Tx. in 2 feet of ice.In just a very short period of time.Lets hope it isnt natural or Houston , we got a problem again .
Wasnt much manufacturing or coal powered electricity producers 25000 years ago . Or do you believe there were ?


Like ‘believe’ in Pro Wrestling, or like ‘believe’ in aliens?

Do you ‘believe’ that previous to 25,000 years ago the Earth wasn’t in an Ice Age epoch?

Do you do science, bro?



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

So the drought suddenly made people cut down more and burn more than previously?

I can maybe understand more burning because foliage gets dryer, but cut more?
edit on 13-10-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We also use oil because it's still the most efficient energy producer for the effort.

Comparatively speaking, the effort and energy it takes to collect and convert most other forms into usable energy still makes them less efficient than oil.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We also use oil because it's still the most efficient energy producer for the effort.

Comparatively speaking, the effort and energy it takes to collect and convert most other forms into usable energy still makes them less efficient than oil.


Exactly.

Why? Its not like we don't have the imagination, or the manpower, to find something better.

The very same people who want to tax me for carbon are the ones who profit from the use of oil.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


If by "most efficient" you mean cheapest and if you're talking about the production of electricity, it's actually natural gas which would take that prize. Followed by coal.

energyinnovation.org...
edit on 10/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

LOL, the same natural gas that is burned off at the wellhead so often.

You can drive down I-20, or any of the highways that criss/cross West Texas at night and see the flames dotting the landscape.

Much of it is due to fracing happening faster than companies like West Texas Gas can build the infrastructure to capture and refine it. But the point is, to oil companies natural gas is often seen as disposable.

One more thing to consider: natural gas can now we converted into a clean burning diesel.

money.cnn.com...

I know some folks (i don't "know" know them, like personal friends or anything) that are involved in opening a refinery for this along the gulf. The big argument was whether it would be HOuston, or somewhere in LA. But with any luck we might be able to improve our situation over the next 10 years.

Although the folks involved have nothing to benefit by undercutting the cost of fuel.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We use it to heat our homes here in Ontario. Cheapest there is. IDK why the rest of the country doesn't jump on this bandwagon. And unless I'm wrong most of our electricity is nuclear generated.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage


Re: The OP.
So we know the source of a bit larger than normal spike in the trend. That could be useful in refining the feedback effects in the models.
www.esrl.noaa.gov...



It's interesting you posted that same link. As I was looking at it, and pondering things I have no education in, like climate science, it occurred to me that we have been really, really concerned about C02 for a while now, we are hearing that "the point of no return has been reached" a few times now, yet that chart shows no lag in C02 increase, just a really, really steady increase every year. So in my uneducated opinion, if we are doing anything at all, it ain't working.

And If I start to talk about alternative energies, I'm always reminded of how inefficient they are, and how they still use the same fossil fuels to be manufactured, so other than feeling good about being "in the know", I don't see an upside to being a true believer in AGW. This is one instance where blissful ignorance is key to a happy life. Daddy always told me not to stress over things I can't change. So I think I'll wait until someone offers a way to enact real change instead of spreading doom and gloom. That way I can keep the smile.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

We use it in West Texas quite a bit. I converted my propane grill to work on natural gas. burns so much hotter....although i don't prefer using gas over wood, so it didn't get much use.

Where i am now, no one uses natural gas (central texas). The restaurant im working on here has a huge propane tank, and we get propane deliveries weekly.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


yet that chart shows no lag in C02 increase, just a really, really steady increase every year.
Not true, actually, the rate of change is quite variable (because there are lots of variables).
www.esrl.noaa.gov...



So in my uneducated opinion, if we are doing anything at all, it ain't working.
The US has made progress. The EU has made progress. China, the largest emitter, seems to have begun to make progress. India, the lowest producer, not so much. The trend continues upward because global production of CO2 is up.

Yeah, I know; why should we do anything if India isn't? One reason is, because we are still the largest producer, per capita, by far. If we can lower our emissions further, India's increase won't have as much impact.



And If I start to talk about alternative energies, I'm always reminded of how inefficient they are, and how they still use the same fossil fuels to be manufactured
Once they are manufactured, they continue to produce power without producing emissions.


, so other than feeling good about being "in the know", I don't see an upside to being a true believer in AGW.
Do you see an upside to believing in hurricanes? In understanding them? How about in understanding Solar storms? Is it a waste to study them, a waste to take measures to mitigate their impacts?

edit on 10/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Wildfires, deforestation, and droughts all kill plants.

Yup, when plants die they are no longer there to convert C02 to oxygen.

Nothing really new or groundbreaking here.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I think it's totally clear that we are overpopulated and have a major pollution problem (still to this day).

Cutting down the forests to make room for farms to feed the ever growing population makes absolutely no sense at all.

We have all the dumping and spills and dozens of air pollutants and the radiation sources, etc.
I don't see why we need a gazillion humans.

I stand by my Georgia Guidestones thread from a year ago.
We are overpopulated.

And if we don't start doing things to fix this, Nature will do it for us.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I stand by my Georgia Guidestones thread from a year ago.


Instead of lethal depopulation, it seems like a better idea would be to use resources to get humans out into space to explore and colonize other planets.

No sense in keeping all of our eggs in one basket when there's endless space out there.
edit on 10/13/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

You mean in the way of life you prefer, right? This planet could sustain us and a whole lot more if society weren't so focused on money. That's the real reason we are still allowing ourselves to pollute the planet.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Has NASA calculated all the volcanoes blowing up in tropical regions yet? Seems to be a lot lit off this past years. This doesn't include Yellowstone. I think not.
edit on 13-10-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: makemap




Seems to be a lot lit off the past years.

More than usual?
Do you have data, or is that just a feeling?

Knock yourself out:
volcano.si.edu...
edit on 10/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Lets see if you can put AGW in context. What percentage is man's "contribution" to AGW (in your scientific opinion) ?

Without that, it's so abstract, I would likely need believers to explain their faith to me. I can grasp the guy on the cross, but this is not in my wheelhouse.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
Right. That's the new paradigm, isn't it? Now that warming is pretty hard to deny. And that rising CO2 concentrations have been so for quite a while.

"Well human activity is doing something to the climate, but we don't know exactly how much."


To answer your question:
> 50%
All things considered.

edit on 10/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join