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.

 

People will die!!!

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird

Well I suppose so. Its hard to keep track of all the verbiage's and coined words or phrases, that mean the same thing here. You could say polluting in your back yard is environmental pollution, but either way you have changed the climate for your backyard.

And ya! CO2 is lacking, that's been a big duh for the past few million years or so.


You don't change the "climate in your backyard" with environmental pollution. If you have heaps of trash in your backyard you don't change the "climate in your backyard. The climate is controlled by many natural factors that mankind has no control of. As for ghgs. It has never been proven that CO2 causes the exaggerated warming claimed by the AGW crowd.

In fact, if it was true that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of "global warming," the amount of atmospheric CO2 that increased from 1998-2016, 39ppm, should have increased global temperatures by ~0.4 C, because from 1898-1998 atmospheric CO2 increased by 72ppm and global temps increased by ~0.8C. But in fact from 1998-2016, and even today in 2018 global temps did not increase more than ~0.1C even thou atmospheric CO2 increased by half of the amount that increased from 1898-1998.

This is Why it is Not Possible that CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.

The fact is that water vapor is a more potent ghg. One molecule of water vapor is 10 times more potent as a ghg than one molecule of CO2, and the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere is much higher than that of CO2. At the poles water vapor exists in the atmosphere at around 1% of all gases in our atmosphere, and on the equator water vapor exists at ~4%-5%. The warmer the atmosphere is the more water vapor it can contain. At the present atmospheric CO2 exists at ~0.04% of all atmospheric gases.

Earth began warming in the early 1600s, over 250 years before the height of the industrial revolution and before atmospheric CO2 began increasing rapidly. The warmer the Earth's atmosphere got, the more water vapor it could contain, which warmed the atmosphere more and so on and so forth.

The EPA even thought about labeling water vapor as a pollutant, but since it is 99.9% natural, they didn't see a reason to do so. But the fact is CO2 is not a pollutant despite the false claim made by Obama's EPA.

Atmospheric CO2 is a gas that all life on Earth exhales, and as such if you blame atmospheric CO2 you can control mankind by making people believe "you are at fault for climate change."



edit on 26-11-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.




posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: sooth
I'm old enough to remember when the left were once considered the more intellectual political persuasion. Seems like forever and day ago now...


If this thread is anything to go by you really couldn't be further from the truth. Your idiot in chief doesn't believe in climate change, multiple people who actually know what they are talking about provide facts but you prefer to believe the dick head because he doesn't want to lose the votes of people who have a vested interest in coal production in America?

Idiots.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: sooth
I'm old enough to remember when the left were once considered the more intellectual political persuasion. Seems like forever and day ago now...


If this thread is anything to go by you really couldn't be further from the truth. Your idiot in chief doesn't believe in climate change, multiple people who actually know what they are talking about provide facts but you prefer to believe the dick head because he doesn't want to lose the votes of people who have a vested interest in coal production in America?

Idiots.


The left has their agenda, and the right has their's. Then there is the truth, which is likely somewhere in the middle. But you keep drinking that kool-aid, and perhaps take a look in the mirror before calling people that don't agree with you an idiot, but hey, you do you.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

If this thread is anything to go by you really couldn't be further from the truth. Your idiot in chief doesn't believe in climate change, multiple people who actually know what they are talking about provide facts but you prefer to believe the dick head because he doesn't want to lose the votes of people who have a vested interest in coal production in America?

Idiots.


There are thousands, and thousands of scientists, including many who were part of the IPCC, who disagree with the claims from the IPCC, and the AGW claim.

I find it very telling how people like yourself leave out this fact. BTW, claiming "they must be working for oil companies" not only is 'ignorant and naive," but it shows that neither you, nor most of the AGW crowd are able to even make an intelligent argument. Which is why you need to call people who disagree with you "idiots..."



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah , I'm Dyin' Right Now Reading this ..................STOP ! ...........LOL



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So where on the argu-o-meter is this one compared to "it's for the children?"



They keep on escalating their claims and making them more exaggerated in order to sow fear in people so that people will vote democrat/socialism.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Don't know were you got your information, and if its in some science book. Then its wrong. And if a million people believe that, then you would just have a million people who are wrong. What do I care if a million people believe that? What do I care what they would all think?

I think it's funny.

But! It is also quite obviously wrong.

First of all there is not such thing as energy production. Period. Case in point..............Periods.............Many of them.....Periods that is.....Let me just put it here.

Humanity in its entire and total sum can not produce energy. Or at least in the real definitive term of that meaning. If you think making oil and gas is producing energy? Then you just being silly, and your wrong, in fact if you had a magic wand and zap, sand into oil or electricity. Its still not energy production. Because your just taking something that exists and converting into another.

The closest thing I can think of making energy is a making a sun, but that would require at the least creating a galaxy and then a long long time and a trillion gazillion other things.

Everything else? Well your just borrowing from one thing, to achieve another thing. It's not energy production. Nope. In fact its the principle of alchemy. You know! What started this whole thing in taking chemical energy and converting it to mechanical energy, back when people were still using the horse and buggy. But its not creating energy its converting one thing into another.

You see that there? Its not creating energy, its taking one form of energy and converting it to another form of energy to achieve yet another form of energy all to different purposes. But even all that is not creating energy, though you can say that you are. In reality you are not your creating purposes and characterized uses for different and various means.

But I suppose were splinting hairs here. And I see no point in debating this as it is quite obvious, that we just have different definition on what energy production is. As such it becomes pointless to even think about it.

And also, your whole thing on using watt's to get hydrogen out of water, its wrong. And also just like oil, here is the thing. There is a lot of water out there, albeit most of it being salt water. But hey it would be no less energy intensive to refine all that then it would be to refine oil for various processes. In fact much easier.

And your whole thing that oil usage over water, wind, water usage, hydrogen, whatever etc, would require a whole lot less wattage. Well like I said. Nah! The process of refining oil would use a whole lot more wattage and yes even water and a ton of other things, and all that, just to get it in at the pump.

Or here this link, took a second to find, it should explain some things. Some dude already did a rough calculation on how much wattage is used to refine oil for driving vehicles ie cars, the gas ones, compared to the electric ones.
Link

So ya, what your talking about is a process that is using more wattage then these model T's first generation electric cars. Now how is that energy creating? Or what the hell is this energy storage thing? Just because something uses batteries means nothing, because that to is just a process of energy conversion. But even that is not energy production.

Or it might be the way your talking about it, but in reality more like energy conversion.

Not that I am saying that oil and gas is bad, dont want someone to read this and think that I am for electric cars or hydrogen cars. In fact what its been now since the invention of the hydrogen engine? Hundreds of years or so, I forget.

I don't agree with it. And gas is better.

Simply because less stupid # would be going on. Teach a man to fish he will fish the lakes and rivers dry. Teach a man to covert hydrogen from water. Then the idiots will be going to war every year over fresh water drinking rights. And who knows what else.

But anyways. What was I talking about. Or worse what were you talking about?



It's painfully obvious you have no idea how energy is produced. Please try reading up on and understanding a subject before you make a fool of yourself.


Listen here dude. I like you. Which is why I have yet to call you all kinds of mean names. But you try to impede my Crom given right to make a fool of myself on the internet. Then we gona have problems, and I would call you all kinds of mean names.

Besides.

As if I cared what people think of me or what I say, especially on the internet. And most most especially people who are so wrong. How silly is that? Generally I just snicker and laugh at he silliness that comes out there mouths or when they put fingers to keypad. Makes me want to poke them with a long stick, just to see what they would do.

Only the lucky few are corrected. Consider yourself corrected.

Your definition on energy production and energy storage. Is wrong.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
HUH!

Who said co2 is bad? Listen dude. I rarely read the stuff that comes out the medias. Generally I skim or read the first few sentences and if it sounds bogus, I dont bother reading or watching farther.

But anyways, whatever your getting at. Yes I think you should consider your backyard or ecosystem that you live in. While not technically not climate per say. Would not hurt people if they considered that you all to consider that there climate. Simply because you can not do jack about the overall climate of the planet. You would definitely get a lot farther fighting the pollution in your back yard, or ecosystem, then you would fighting global climate change.

Nor do I think burning fossil fuels is a good way to "up" the Co2 on any scale across the planet. We need to come up with a better way. Things like converting water to electricity on a mass scale would do it, or would help more, and other ways I suppose, but that would just lead to lots of other issues.

But ya, we have been lacking in the CO2 in the atmosphere for a long long while.

Either way, there was a video here somebody posted, Jordan Peterson on climate change I think.

Or it could have been another thread.

Anyways, people should watch that. It was more informative, and ya. Your not going to fight climate change, the whole Idea seems kind of silly, its like a mouse fighting the moon, while getting stuck in the mouse trap trying to get at the cheese.

But hey, maybe we should all run around screaming the sky is falling. It would be more entertaining. But once again I think were just arguing rhetoric's here. It is a theme on ATS, or in life it seems. Arguing rhetoric's, that is.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird


Humanity in its entire and total sum can not produce energy.

OK, you got me there... matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. That's the physics response.

I was speaking of the energy industry standards, not the physical standards. We have oil. It's already there. We do not have hydrogen (that we can access in needed quantities). That is the difference from a purely pragmatic view. We have running water as well... in one sense, that is energy that originally came from the sun, which heated the air, which evaporated the water, which then cooled, which fell as rain at a higher elevation that it started at. But the running water is already there, and as a society it costs us nothing to have it. The same with the chemical energy stored in oil and gas... it's already there. It costs us nothing energy-wise to have it.

We do not have hydrogen laying around in large enough quantities to be useful... neither do we have electricity just flashing around waiting to be captured (unless you want to figure out a way to trap lightning... good luck with that). We have to make hydrogen to have it, and we have to make electricity to have it. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, remember? So if we have to make something, it has no more energy in it that we put in it. We have to get the energy we put in it from somewhere, so we have to use what we have available... and we're back to the industry definition of energy production.

You can call it 'splitting hairs,' but it's a pretty necessary concept. Otherwise you get something like this:

That don't work.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird


Things like converting water to electricity on a mass scale would do it, or would help more, and other ways I suppose, but that would just lead to lots of other issues.

How do you manage to do that? You have a Nobel Prize in your future if you can!

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird

But anyways, whatever your getting at. Yes I think you should consider your backyard or ecosystem that you live in. While not technically not climate per say. Would not hurt people if they considered that you all to consider that there climate. Simply because you can not do jack about the overall climate of the planet. You would definitely get a lot farther fighting the pollution in your back yard, or ecosystem, then you would fighting global climate change.
...


I am not quite sure what you are saying in the above sentence.


originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
Nor do I think burning fossil fuels is a good way to "up" the Co2 on any scale across the planet.


Nature doesn't care what you think. In fact, as I pointed out the Earth has greened because of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Nature itself loves the increase in atmospheric CO2.



originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
We need to come up with a better way. Things like converting water to electricity on a mass scale would do it, or would help more, and other ways I suppose, but that would just lead to lots of other issues.


You seem to not know how much energy is needed for this. Not to mention the fact that "to activate water oxidation," which is the first step to produce hydrogen fuel, at large scales produces poisonous chlorine gas.

There are new technologies that are much better such as using chlorophyl.

CHLOROPHYLL AS A NEW ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE

In fact scientists have discovered a new form of chlorophyl that can absorb infrared light which extends the photosynthetic range for maximum use of solar energy.

A New Form of Chlorophyll?

But then again, we are nowhere near to being able to switch to this type of energy source for now, and it will probably take at least a decade if not more to make such a switch if we find it to be a viable source of energy.






edit on 29-11-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's good to see the research into photosynthetic chlorophyll use is continuing. I hadn't heard much about it in a while.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: uncommitted

If this thread is anything to go by you really couldn't be further from the truth. Your idiot in chief doesn't believe in climate change, multiple people who actually know what they are talking about provide facts but you prefer to believe the dick head because he doesn't want to lose the votes of people who have a vested interest in coal production in America?

Idiots.


There are thousands, and thousands of scientists, including many who were part of the IPCC, who disagree with the claims from the IPCC, and the AGW claim.

I find it very telling how people like yourself leave out this fact. BTW, claiming "they must be working for oil companies" not only is 'ignorant and naive," but it shows that neither you, nor most of the AGW crowd are able to even make an intelligent argument. Which is why you need to call people who disagree with you "idiots..."




No, I don't call anyone an idiot for disagreeing with me, I call them an idiot for ignoring actual facts, particular those that feel they have to ignore them for ideological reasons - people like you for example looking at other posts of yours in this thread.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
"Dozens injured as a result of 22 rare December tornadoes in Central Illinois" --- That's what occasionally happens, when mother nature clashes a cold front against an abnormally high temperature warm front --- Which is likely a result from human caused climate change.

These type of human caused climate tragedies are becoming the "normal;" so don't become desensitized to the problem of climate change.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: waypasthadenough

Why support the eco-terrorists...that help cause catastrophic climate events around our planet?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join