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.

 

Why You Should Never Believe The Global Warming Hoax And Alarmism

page: 5
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: IrateCanadian

it does matter that we are polluting the earth we do have an affect on the earth we are destroying natural habitats and life, it's just that Profit matters more !


It does matter for us as humans and our offspring.
But we must not lose site
sight?

that all life is based on the natural products that are all over Earth. It is what it is when a species dominates the other animals. We honestly only scratch the surface Earth.
As does the climate.

Humans are a product of Earth and what we do is what was supposed to happen.
On what basis is this "supposed" to happen? Please not the bible, please!



We are the only animal that can launch to the Moon and that is all Earth based ideas and materials therefore is natures way to produce a sentient being that will build and explore beyond this planet.
Huh? Earth like "Oi, lets have an animal which goes to the moon!"? Seriously?

Earth is special
(Quotation needed)

and we are only hurting humans in the end
A million species are dead because of humans, but lets ignore this..

because wildlife adapts and the Earth's natural mechanisms cleanse the debris of the losers like humanity may become one day, off the face of the Earth.
Sure, but that takes time and we are guilty of that mass extinction event. Do we have to be guilty of this to happen?



Those that see us as a blight should prove it. They will if they go and off themselves, leaving a note please to explain and we will see who was really committed to the idea without killing others to make the point.
Sure, that will happen, as it is so completely human to accept fate and guilt. That would have killed off a lot of people in the past and present, without feeling remorse about the climate..




posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You didn't do glacial isostatic adjustment. Here I'll do it for you.

The sea level numbers are adjusted because the former "pressure" on the land pushing it down into the sea from glaciers is no longer there. IOW the glacial isostatic adjustment is where sea levels would have been if the ice hadn't melted, yet, via some other source water was added to the sea. Of course this is asinine as those glaciers are where the extra water for rising sea levels comes from.

This adjustment is currently ongoing (and most of our "sea level rise" can be attributed to it). Here's what NOAA says about it:



Even though the ice retreated long ago, North America is still rising where the massive layers of ice pushed it down.


This of course extends beyond north america.



So, adjusting for the weight of ice during the last glacial period, the Younger Dryas 11,700 years ago is particularly invalid


You don't seem to agree with NOAA?



when sea level rise is currently averaging 3.3 millimeters per year.


They're nowhere near 3mm per year. The most I've ever seen claimed (by a legitimate scientific study) is ~1.5mm and many put it more around 0.5mm.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Maroboduus

Oh no! 3 inches? In 25 years????? The humanity! how will we survive!?!? Remember, the prediction was that by 2000 (11 years after the study) NATIONS would be underwater. Here we are 20 years past due (30 years from the prediction) and no nations have gone under water.

You realize in the not too distant past, sea levels were 20+ feet higher than they are today, right? And you're using 3 inches to say I'm uninformed. LMAO, you people are so gullible. If you even read the AP article I cited you would know they predicted three feet of rise (by the year 2000). And you are on here spreading alarmism about three inches 20 years past due. LMFAO. Get out w/that BS.
edit on 4-6-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Please take a look at page 16 of this WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2018 (WMO=World Meteorological Organization).



Global mean sea level for 2018 was around 3.7 mm higher than in 2017 and the highest on record. Over the period January 1993 to December 2018, the average rate of rise was 3.15 ± 0.3 mm yr-1, while the estimated accel-eration was 0.1 mm yr-2.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

I stand corrected.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The Maledives would like the rising sealevel to stop!



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

You're right, I was confusing the pre 1992 rise of ~1.5 with the more recent trend of ~3. But again, that is besides the point. The prediction was 3 feet (915mm) by y2k. Here we are 20 years past that and we aren't even to +100. Furthermore, the actual sea level rise (you know, the one where you actually have to worry about your beach house) is lower than that because of the glacial isostatic adjustment.
edit on 4-6-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

We already discussed this. Climate alarmist National Geographic even disagrees with the premise.



They found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward.

edit on 4-6-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Well the latest "prediction" is that in 12 years we'll be past the point of no return (even though they've already predicted we'd be past the point of no return by now). So in 12 years, can we just disregard all of this nonsense, since by then it'll be too late to do anything anyway? Otherwise they'd have to acknowledge they lied or were just wrong about the 12 year prediction.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

wont happen until we get the petro industry giants on board , too much money to be lost from fossil fuels and protecting the environment means damaging their profits.

Governments wont stop that immediately because we all rely on petro!
we all rely on that money to keep going !

and profit now is better than nice planet later !

no one wants to give up cash now for a beautiful planet later

Greedy #in #s !



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

You're not greedy though, right?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Al gore predicted 2008 and 20014 IIRC. So add a couple more to the list.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Oh please. We have technology that literally rips carbon out of the atmosphere. Why do solutions never involve expanding on and improving that into becoming a viable solution? Why must everything require uprooting everyone's way of life and taxing people into the ground. How in the hell does giving more money to governments and making people poorer fix the environment?

There's no plan for this money gained by these taxes to fix the planet. Are they going to use it to make alternate green solutions more viable? Are they going to use into to change the infastructure so there are as many charging stations as gas pumps? Are they going to expand the technology so electric cars are just as affordable for the poor? Will there be some program where people under a certain income can trade in their gas gussler for an alternate fuel vehicle or are just cool with robbing the poor who not only can't afford a new alternate fuel vehicle and due to paying carbon taxes have even less ability to afford an alternate fuel vehicle and are more trapped into poverty because of it? Are they going to use this money to expand on and improve technology that fixes the environment and fixes or reduces are impact like the technology I mentioned earlier?

No this money is going to go into the hands of corrupt politicians and people will be left io struggle as they get fat wallets while we are punished and put into a sink or swim scenario and forced even further into poverty and furthering the divide into the haves and have nots since only the rich can afford the alternate fuel solutions as they all require lots of money upfront to save down the road. People will be further imprisoned in run down # holes as transportation will become unaffordable to the common man. Getting to jobs will become impossible... there is so much wrong with carbon tax as a solution, especially without a gaurenteed use of that money to ease the transition or fix the problem petmanently by improving technological fixes.

I mean seriously being able to literally control how much carbon in the atmosphere would be seriously helpful to terraforming planets in the future. Especially when such carbon can be used to literally build things.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ManFromEurope

We already discussed this. Climate alarmist National Geographic even disagrees with the premise.



They found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward.


Yeah, okay, but even in that article the author mentions this:

High water temperatures kill corals, and acidification affects their ability to produce their skeletons, since calcium carbonate dissolves in acid.
, and that the acidity of ocean water has risen to a dangerous point, so there will be a problem if coral atolls which are (indeed) prone to erosion by storms and torrents cannot rebuild themselves on the other side of the island.

The author states:

Although it's shrinking now, a big-enough storm could...

so there is consens that the size of Tuvalu is reduced, a point which the author seems to try to navigate carefully around but cannot seem to ignore completely (while telling the reader what a nice place it is, although the population should stop building houses which will drown in the next years).

The key points are: Tuvalu is shrinking. The corals cannot keep up with rebuilding. This is caused by worse conditions for the corals (sea water heat and acidity rising) and by rising sea levels. These points are not deposed off by this article.

The only hope for Tuvalu and similar micro-islands is that the corals are adapting to (or coping with) changed environmental ressources.

They will drown.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

You're getting off into the weeds. Yes some of them are shrinking others are growing. As the world changes, it changes. Weird I know. Very hard concept to grasp. However, the point is these islands have been moving, growing, and shrinking for millennia. Now that we built buildings on them we expect it to stop?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The ATS moto Deny Ignorance is like an alarm bell ringing here. The better term is climate change, but people who want to deny that humans have had an effect/impact on our planet cling to the term global warming. It's true that the earths environment has changed over it's life time without the "help" of humans but to all the deniers here, don't you think that things like plastic in the oceans, mass de-forestation, soot from coal burning and vehicle pollution to name just a few, will have an effect on human life long term?
The so called experts my get the time it takes for things like sea rise to happen wrong, but we can all see that it is happening, can't we? Pretty much what ever we do to the Earth, it will shrug off, and repair after we've gone the way of the dinosaurs. I'm of the thinking that denying we effect the climate and the environment is just stupid but also running round like a headless chicken screaming about how we are damaging the earth is just has crazy, it will carry on without us. Just like the solar system has a "goldilocks zone" that we need to live, the earth also has a "goldilocks zone" that we need to survive on this planet, and it's our effect on that, we should be careful about effecting.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

This is exactly why I make these threads. Yes the climate changes, yes we may have had an effect. The alarmism is the mainstream thinking out there and so it must be combated. In fact many responses to this thread are great examples of why this thread is needed. At no point in the OP did I say the climate wasn't changing. Nor did I say humans have zero to do with it.

Yet, because the mainstream is alarmism, anything short of that or calling out that alarmism for what it is (unfounded) is seen as questioning or denying both.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




the mainstream is alarmism


It keeps them in jobs and makes people money but the same can be said for the people who are also denying that something is happening to the climate.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

I think you'll find that the vast majority of those who don't believe the hype are willing to admit that the climate changes and is changing. Even if you won't get them to admit that people have something to do with it. However, in the opposite you won't find very many people who believe the alarmism but don't think people have much to do with it.

My own personal position is that yes the climate is changing. Yes we have had some effect (I go back and forth on how much, from very little to almost all). However, in the end the world has been headed towards death since day 1. We cannot speed that up or slow it down much.

Why I believe this? We are insignificant, you can fit every living person on earth on kona island (the big island of hawaii) with room to spare. We are ignorant of how the entire system works as well, so any attempt to change the inputs could easily result in just as bad or worse output results. If adjustments need to be made, they are only minor and our current way of life is changing more rapidly than at any point in human history. So we may as well wait and see and adapt if we must.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:50 PM
link   
You wrote:
"You didn't do glacial isostatic adjustment. Here I'll do it for you.

The sea level numbers are adjusted because the former "pressure" on the land pushing it down into the sea from glaciers is no longer there. IOW the glacial isostatic adjustment is where sea levels would have been if the ice hadn't melted, yet, via some other source water was added to the sea. Of course this is asinine as those glaciers are where the extra water for rising sea levels comes from.

This adjustment is currently ongoing (and most of our "sea level rise" can be attributed to it). Here's what NOAA says about it:

Even though the ice retreated long ago, North America is still rising where the massive layers of ice pushed it down."




You didn't do glacial isostatic adjustment correctly. Here, I'll do it for you.

Actually, I'll let the University of Colorado explain it:

judithcurry.com...

To summarize:

"The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle. GIA is not caused by current glacier melt, but by the rebound of the Earth from the several kilometer thick ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe around 20,000 years ago. ... The effect is that currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter). Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr."

That's MINUS 0.3 mm/yr. That's because the overall effect of GIA is to make the ocean basins slightly larger. If the total amount of water in the oceans stayed the same and the basin got slightly larger, then the sea level would go down by a slight amount. But the measured sea level is actually rising. That means that the rate at which the water volume of the ocean is currently increasing due to surface ice melt is greater than the rate at which the ocean basin volume is increasing due to GIA.

In other words, the current rate of measured sea level rise (3+ mm/year) due to surface ice melt is about 10 times greater than the sea level lowering due to the glacial isostatic adjustment, averaged one the globe.

It should be noted that in order for this kind of adjustment to be valid, it has to be measured over every part of the globe, because the individual effects of ice sheet overpressure can vary from place to place. Even though you correctly quote NOAA saying that the middle of the North American plate is currently rising due to the removal of the ice sheet, you either didn't know or failed to note that NOAA also points out that most of the Eastern US seaboard is actually submerging in response to the removal of the ice sheet. (It's called forebulge subsidence). Other places on the planet (like Australia, for example) had no ice sheets at all during the last global glaciation period. So, you have to take that all in to account in figuring out the global GIA.
edit on 4-6-2019 by 1947boomer because: Punctuation correction



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join