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's time lapse video of 20 years of earth just proves global warming is a lie right?

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Got it, you clearly have zero clue about greenhouse gases and impact. You saw something somewhere that said CO2 bad, and just ran with it.

Don't bother looking into methane, cfc's, hfc's, or hcfc's at all because it's all some mumbo-jumbo garbage.

It's all about CO2. And how it's among the worst greenhouse gases ever according to you.

GO SCIENCE!




posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I don't see the cows caring - so why should we?

I jest.

What bothers me is the lack of education on this topic. The amount of people that hear "global warming" and immediately believe humans are to blame and there is no other cause.

We need to educate people on the earth's history and it's cyclical nature. The world has been both hotter and cooler than it is now over the years, long before man was being toxic... in more ways than one.

Although good sense, no amount of recycling will stop the earth doing what she wants.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 03:20 AM
link   
we are at the high of the Milankovitch Cycle.

all other Milankovitch Cycles have dropped to there low point and CO2 has nothing to do with it.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

It looks like they think the earth is flat haha, and where is the time/date stamp ?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I agree that the video is waaay to short (in terms of period) to give any indication of anything... In 1997 the industries were already well on the way to be more environmental conscientious. To really understand the impact of human activity and pollution we'll have to see something from at least 20 years before the industrial revolution (pre-1760) up until now.
While that is obviously impossible, there are other sources like snow cores spanning centuries, that for example indicate an increase in lead levels. Luckily for us lead is completely harmless. (Yes. Sarcasm.) There is also no evidence of say, acid rain, which remains a complete myth to this day. (Yes, more sarcasm.) The average passenger vehicle emits about 411 grams of CO2 per mile. There are about 1.2 billion vehicles on world's roads. So if every car in the world drove a single mile, that would be about 493 200 metric tons of CO2... So where exactly does all of this go? Oh wait. We've got those millions and millions of square miles of rain forests that produces oxygen to compensate, so it all evens out... (Uh-huh. You guess it.)

But just throwing it up in the air. Let it land where it wants to.

I always find these discussions quite amusing and reminds me of this cartoon:


Hopefully President Trump's new and improved clean coal will save us all. Not that there's anything to save us from. Just saying. (Yep. You guessed it.)

edit on 23/11/2017 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: dan121212
www.youtube.com...
I don’t see the Sahara getting bigger every year, so what do you all think?


I think that comment isn't entirely accurate, as the following article explains:

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: jamespond

yeah i said i don't see it and was referring to the time lapse video that i posted



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

You don't honestly think, that you'd see any significant permanent changes in just 20 years? Especially viewed from that far?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
we are at the high of the Milankovitch Cycle.

all other Milankovitch Cycles have dropped to there low point and CO2 has nothing to do with it.


It is perfectly valid to condider orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and orbital precession in the discussion, but to ignore the contribution of CO2 is to ignore fundamental chemistry and physics. It is totally ignorant to deny that CO2 is almost perfectly transparebt to photons with wavelengths in the visible spectrum but, unlike oxygen or nitrogen, absorbs those in parts of the infrared region, and then emits photons also in the infrared region, although in a higher frequency region. The scientifically literate know that energy of a photon is a function of the wavelength/frequency of that photon. So you have the original insolation of the earrth and added to that, the re-emitted energy from the CO2. It's not so much that CO2 traps heat as it is that it lets all the heat in, but doesn't let it all radiate back out into space. The entire controversy over GW and the role of CO2 highlights the failure of basic science education in this country.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED



we are at the high of the Milankovitch Cycle.

Source?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

We are not producing methane o the scale we are producing CO2...

Literally EVERYTHING produces CO2...

Is that a deflection???

That is so obvious I hope you meant something else..

If you think “methane holds more heat” is a valid rebuttal... damn...

Like I said you can do an experiment at home to test that CO2 holds more heat, and a 2 year old knows we are producing loads of it..

What does methane have to do with anything?!?!

PLUS!!!

Any methane we are producing would just be ON TOP of what C02 we are creating..

So that wouldn’t contradict global warming anyway...



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Even if we are,( I’m assuming the malcovich cycle is the normal temp swings over the eons) the CO2 would be on top of that...

Imho and I assume the reason they have such overwhelming support from scientists, is that it is easy math..

CO2 holds more heat..

We are producing a butt ton of CO2...

Obviously the planet will heat up..

How fast and what the results will be are fairly debated.


But pretending VERY basic math is a conspiracy...

Well that was just bad propaganda..

They would have done better atacking the potential consequences, rather than the math surrounding CO2 heat absorption..



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

To be fair, it's an issue of the 2 having compounding effects. CO2 raises temperatures enough that permafrost in subarctic regions begins to thaw and releases methane trapped within the permafrost into the atmosphere. As both are greenhouse gasses, it's important to factor in the effects both have and unfortunately for everyone, whether they like it or not, there is a cascade effect. An increase in one as a result of industrial combustion leads to the release of the other and the effects become compounded. The CO2 is more quickly recycled where the methane isn't so short term effects of increased CO2 lead to long term effects of increased methane.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
IDK. This is just one 20/4,500,000,000th of the Earth's weather history.

Anything past 100 years or so is just inference prone to varying interpretation. How can we safely assume anything with such a statistically insignificant sample?

I am not arguing one way or another on man-made this or that.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Phage

Even if we are,( I’m assuming the malcovich cycle is the normal temp swings over the eons) the CO2 would be on top of that...

Imho and I assume the reason they have such overwhelming support from scientists, is that it is easy math..

CO2 holds more heat..

We are producing a butt ton of CO2...

Obviously the planet will heat up..

How fast and what the results will be are fairly debated.


But pretending VERY basic math is a conspiracy...

Well that was just bad propaganda..

They would have done better atacking the potential consequences, rather than the math surrounding CO2 heat absorption..


The entire premise is beyond silly. Temperature travels hot to cold, cold attracts heat, heat will dissipate over time as it naturally cools. Heat is generated and when generation ceases cooling starts naturally. It's almost as if this premise ignores thermo-dynamics completely. For something that is "very basic math" there is no math present in your argument. Absorbing heat is not sustaining heat. C02 doesn't sustain heat, nor does it generate it. If C02 was so great at absolving heat, we'd be using it for cooling, we don't -- because it's not. While some refrigerant does have carbon in it, all refrigerants are based on methane, or methane chlorine mixtures. Since you seem to struggle with the concept of thermo dynamics and cooling and heating, you've got to understand that when lets say, freon [refrigerant] absorbs heat, all it's doing is moving it. It's not making the heat last longer, or dissipate more slowly. The other thing that's completely missing from your argument is Latent heat. Latent heat is heat that is present that cannot be measured. This is why climate scientists who support AGW are all tools -- because they don't understand thermo-dynamics. Latent heat, is heat trapped in humidity, or H20, not C02.

In terms of C02, we have less in the post industrial age than we had pre-industrial age. We're floating somewhere around 400ppm, back when Dinosaurs walked the earth, it was 5,000ppm. Last I checked, dinosaurs weren't factory producing plastics. This on the other hand is very basic math. 400ppm is drastically less than 5,000ppm.

Also, plants naturally scrub C02. C02 is not at all a problem right now and anyone who thinks it is, isn't being objective. Even if C02 was high, than the cause isn't industry, it's deforestation.

The fact that there hasn't been any real observable permanent temperature changes over the last 100 years should pretty much prove to anyone that AGW is a hoax. We've seen temperature variance, sometimes cooler, sometimes hotter, but no static trend. Before AGW it was "Global cooling" -- there was more carbon in the air back then, than there is now with all the pushes for Green tech, but suddenly it's carbon that's warming us???

It's non-sense.
edit on 24-11-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Absolutely.. so how is saying “methane” a rebuttal?!?!

Lol..I know it wasn’t you..


But it just blows my mind..

I often wonder how people honestly searching for answers precieve these debates on ATS..

Do they look at a reply like that and think “nailed it!”


Or do they look at it and say, “wait a min.. that’s not a counterpoint!”



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: peter vlar

Absolutely.. so how is saying “methane” a rebuttal?!?!

Lol..I know it wasn’t you..


But it just blows my mind..

I often wonder how people honestly searching for answers precieve these debates on ATS..

Do they look at a reply like that and think “nailed it!”


Or do they look at it and say, “wait a min.. that’s not a counterpoint!”






You realize that every living animal produces both methane and C02? Absorption rate =/= Temperature Decay rate? All absorption is, is the physical moving of heat....


Mannnnnnnnnnnnnnn.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime


(Just so it’s said I really appreciate the logical reply that actually includes counterpoints to discuss.. )

A) The sun never stops for the heat to dissipate... and the heat level never reaches zero to reboot.. so you always have heat remaining that compounds with the heat from the previous day’s sunlight..


B) how are the elements that better absorb heat relevant???

We are not producing them on the scale we produce CO2..


C) when the Dino’s were here the climate was way hotter.. so that seems like evidence against your proposal.. and the earth was more volcanically active..

D) I’m trying too look into the CO2 ppm being higher in the preindustrial age than today and the mainstream theory that explains it.. I consider this one a very valid argument that the mainstream would have to explain the mechanism for it’s removal or that would fairly fall into the evidence against it bin.


Conclusion:

1) logistically, why would it take to get 95% of the worlds scientists (smartest people) to lie for you?

ALOT...

You wouldn’t ha e to pay off every single one, but your haveinf to payoff a whole lot of them..

Then if it is all fake, how much money is being spent to orcastrate it?? You have the cost of your propaganda campaign, and paying off all the “out side the loop” politicians.. any actions we have already taken would go in the expense Column too.. all the plane trips for the scientists going on expeditions. Maybe a couple false flags to help gain people’s attention..


All for what??? A tax scam???


Couldn’t anyone with the logistics to do all that print up more money??? Hell its all electronic now.. one hacker could likely do it, but hell its the government doing it so, no need for a hacker....



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

Yes but every factory doesn’t.. nor do most things produce as much methane as they do CO2..

But even if they did, that would change NOTHING..

Because they would compound with each other, not cancel each other out..



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
we are at the high of the Milankovitch Cycle.

all other Milankovitch Cycles have dropped to there low point and CO2 has nothing to do with it.


Actual scientific fact:

The maximum point of the latest Milankovitch cycle was about 6000 to 8000 BC, called "Holocene optimum". Climate was cooling slightly, every bit as expected, until the current industrial period when significant new greenhouse gases were de-sequestered from fossil fuels upon which climate started to warm more rapidly and counteract and overcome substantially the slow astronomical influences.

All of these influences are a consequence of the eternal laws of physics and are clearly understood.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join