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.

 

Can We Even Stop Global Warming?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The computer models have even been off in their predictions of "present Climatic trends" yet you claim they are not wrong in other "Climatic models"?.....


What are you laughing about? You have yet to make a weather prediction or know the difference between regional weather models and climate models. Who says I predict? I'm smart enough to look at existing models and not be so glib as to listen to Russian kooks with no models.

So where's that model that's more accurate? Still waiting.

Hint: Those kooks don't have them.



[edit on 7-2-2007 by Regenmacher]




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
One more thing Rainmaker, I never said "lets pollute away"... again you are twisting the facts, who would have thought....

"Pollution" and "Global Warming" are two different things. You want to curb pollution, that's fine, i agree with that. But you want to claim that "man-made pollution created Global Warming", now that's a kook spreading disinformation...

If some people are jealous because they are flipping burgers meanwhile reading 2 cent science magazines it is not my problem. Nor is it Dr. Lee Gerhard's problem, or any of the other scientists who disagree with "mankind is at fault for everything crowd". Apparently some people are jealous because these scientists are famous, and they are not...

Anyways, you are obviously confused with the definitions of Global Warming and Pollution. They are two different things.


CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

www.canada.com...

One of the main points i made when i started discussing in this thread is that people need to understand the differences between "pollution" and "Global Warming"...

You are obviously one of the confused people. it must be the 2 cent 500 year old science magazines you keep reading.

And of course, who is to forget the 60 Canadian scientists who wrote to the Canadian prime minister their objection to "man-made Global warming"... or the "scientific concensus of Russian scientists that mankind has not caused, and is not causing Global Wamring..

Ohh, i forgot...they are all being paid by Exxon, Shell or any other oil company to state their opinions....



Some people should keep their burger flipping dayjob...They are going to need the money for the 2 cent, 500 year old science magazines...


[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
If you are jealous because you are flipping burgers meanwhile reading 2 cent science magazines it is not my problem. Nor is it Dr. Lee Gerhard's problem, or any of the other scientists you apparently are jealous of because they are famous and you are not...

Paris Hilton is a famous kook too, so call her for your forecasts instead of the NWS.

Kooks say humans don't or can't influence climate. You don't like that, tough. No one is going to agree with you or those kooks, until you prove anthropogegnic factors don't effect climate and build a model that will work.

So where's that model?
Hint: Your made up fictional reality isn't it.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Lets see models, because apparently some people need graphs instead of long scientific explanations to be proven a point.

Let's see what is man's contribution of greenhouse gases to the Earth



Oh wow...0.28%.. in comparison to 95% of water vapor which retains twice the heat than CO2... Wow...yeah that must be it...it can't be anything else...

Oh well, let's see the long trend temperature change from Greenland's ice core data...



Oh no...that's the smoking gun that puts all the blame on mankind....


And some other graphs.

www.warwickhughes.com...

www.warwickhughes.com...

www.warwickhughes.com...

Oh but someone is going to keep claiming, "that's no data...that's not data...where is the data, and the names of the real scientists that contradict mankind's role on Global warming?"....


All of the graphs and links above can be found at.
www.warwickhughes.com...

Or in the powerpoint presentation which has more graphs and data at.
ff.org...

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
OT
Currently i'm personally questioning the global warming:
It's -30C outdoors and now sings of warming up


to be back on topic, i feel that certain groups are definately not looking for the longer trends in earths temperature cycles. We are still recovering from the 15th century mini iceage...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Oh but someone is going to keep claiming, "that's no data...that's not data...where is the data, and the names of the real scientists that contradict mankind's role on Global warming?"....


Carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005 and was the largest change for any decade in 200+ years. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 was the highest in 650,000 years. So a handful of kooks want the NOAA to believe that CO2 isn't a major factor when it sticks out like Everest, just cause they say so


NOAA says no debate, tough nuts for the kooks:

NCDC: Global Warming

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


There's plenty of data that the US government supports. There's a handful of bashcasting anarchist kooks that can't make a model, publish in a peer reviewed journal, and thus the US government doesn't support them.

So where's the non-anthro climate model?

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
You know what Muaddib,

I stopped trying to argue with Regenmacher a long time ago. His only agenda is to refute every single thing anyone says regardless of it's veracity, simply it seems to be argumentative....while Regenmacher is in his shorts screamin Global Warming during the next freeze over, me and my science will lay back, laugh and think... "ANY DAY NOWWWWWW"...

Everything is going to be ok now folks!! Regenmacher has given "THE" word....and there will be global warming, by gum...now we can all thank Regenmacher for his many years of tireless effort with the scientists at wikipedia and (im sorry where was it again?) Wendys for developing these results and selflessly designing the paleoclimatic models by which to forecast future climate trends simply so that, us neophytes here at ATS can remain informed as to REAL science...I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude, and personally speaking, from the bottom of my heart I would like to say, yes indeed I most certainly WILL have a large order of fries with that.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Everything is going to be ok now folks!! Regenmacher has given "THE" word....and there will be global warming, by gum...now we can all thank Regenmacher for his many years of tireless effort with the scientists at wikipedia and (im sorry where was it again?)


You left out the US, EU, UN, NOAA, CPC, NWS, NASA, EPA, AAAS, NACC, WMO, etc, etc, etc that say global warming is here too. So we have 60 anarchist kooks with no climate models verses the world, so what's the odds on this fool's bet?

Global Warming and Climate Change Policy Websites NASA
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Global Warming NOAA


Global temperature change
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Global surface temperature has increased [approx]0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within [approx]1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than [approx]1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



President: Massive Effort Needed on Climate
AAAS- The World's Largest General Scientific Society

"The new report powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable. The report is far clearer and less equivocal in its description of how Earth's climate is changing—and in attributing the bulk of these changes to human activities—than the last IPCC report in 2001. That was to be expected, because since 2001 there has been a torrent of new scientific evidence on the magnitude, human origins, and growing impacts of the climatic changes that are underway. In overwhelming proportions, this evidence has been in the direction of showing faster change, more danger, and greater confidence about the dominant role of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning and tropical deforestation in causing the changes that are being observed.

"A few climate-change 'skeptics' have tried to seize on pre-release accounts of the report's treatment of sea-level rise to assert that the IPCC's new portrayal is less pessimistic than the previous one. This is an obvious distortion. The report is very clear that the scientific basis for alarm about the pace and dangers of climate change has grown enormously since 2001. It states plainly that the observed pace of sea-level rise has been increasing, along with the pace of change in many other indicators of climate-linked danger. The report also makes clear that, while the processes that could further accelerate sea-level rise in a warming world are not fully understood and in some respects are controversial, the possibility of truly devastating increases in sea level is real."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 7-2-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
........
What are you laughing about? You have yet to make a weather prediction or know the difference between regional weather models and climate models.


Wow, but I though NASA's Supercomputers were precise, and make no mistakes.... Now you want to tell us that even though NASA's Supercomputers can't predict weather forecasts with their computer models for two weeks, and in many cases a week, yet NASA's supercomputers models can predict perfectly models for long term Climate Change in the future?.... Even when many of the changes from past ages can't be explained by the same models... Wow, that's very reasonable...



Originally posted by Regenmacher
Who says I predict? I'm smart enough to look at existing models and not be so glib as to listen to Russian kooks with no models.


Are you a racist?...wow, who would have thought?; and of course you also have to dismiss what several other scientists have to say appart from the Russians, the Canadians, French and other scientist from different countries, just because the Rainmaker wants to dimiss their data....



[edit on 8-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Hell with global warming the BIG question should be can we even stop Muaddib from smothering threads he doesn't like by barraging them with endless posts, because that is the end result of it all. It reaches the point where is isn't even a discussion anymore, it is Muaddib browbeating everybody with his opinions and interpretations and passing them off as indisputable facts.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover

And pray tell me why being concerned about pollution is alarmist?


I don't think that's alarmist. i actually do think we have to be responsible to the environment. But pollution does not equal to Global warming, and Global Warming is not caused by pollution.


Originally posted by grover
In case you haven't noticed the hydrocarbons being dumped into the atmosphere ARE pollutants as are the sulphuric emissions that cause acid rain and so many other things as well...


That's where you are wrong. CO2 is not a "pollutant, it is a trace gas which is also needed for Earth's ecosystem to exist.

In case you didn't know a great part of the reason why Earth has so much oxygen is because of the amount of CO2 it has, which plants use to produce oxygen. Water vapor is also a trace gas, as well as methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

More people have died from water in all it's states than from CO2...yet is water a pollutant?... The Earth needs CO2, since plants and green vegetation in the Earth need it to create oxygen, we need it too, just as we need water.

Another fact, apparently some people don't know about is that without these trace gases the Earth would be 33 degrees Celsius cooler.

There are other trace gases, such as nitric oxide and sulphur dioxide, which are also caused by natural sources like lightning, forest fires and volcanic eruptions.

Water can become acidic when it's Ph changes. Natural chemical reactions have done this in the past, and can do it now too.

Yes there are some activities by mankind that also produce such reactions, and i do agree that we need to be concious about the environment, and take care of it, but it is an entire different matter trying to claim that mankind is to blame for Global warming.

The facts are, that 99% of the Earth's atmosphere is composed of Nitrogen, which makes up 78% of Earth's atmosphere, and Oxygen, which makes up 21% of Earth's atmosphere. The remaining 1% are trace gases.

Out of that remaining 1%, water vapor makes up for 95%, while the rest of the trace gases are 5%, and mankind's contribution of the greenhouse gas CO2, is 0.28%.

It is also known as a fact that CO2 is an effect on the rise of temperatures. CO2 does not cause temperatures to rise. CO2 lags temperature, it does not lead it.



Originally posted by grover
...................
the tailings from mines that poison streams down stream to the mercury in fish (very toxic in case you haven't noticed) to lead in drinking water... PCB's and dioxins... it is not wise to eat the fish from the James river near here because of those two alone.

To not concerned about it is most certainly ignorant and to live in a fantasy world. Your "rebuttal" proves my point about you quite clearly.


I never said noone should be concerned about pollution, but global warming is not caused by pollution.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Actually that was directed towards centurian. Be that as it may anything, including CO2 in excess becomes a pollutant...Hell drinking too much water can kill you.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Hell with global warming the BIG question should be can we even stop Muaddib from smothering threads he doesn't like by barraging them with endless posts, because that is the end result of it all. It reaches the point where is isn't even a discussion anymore, it is Muaddib browbeating everybody with his opinions and interpretations and passing them off as indisputable facts.


I don't see you providing any data, much less evidence to this discussion, or any other, ever....

You want to discuss "the topic", then go ahead, but all you do everytime is just attack those people who don't agree with you, and present data that you want to dismiss immediately, just because you can't understand it.

Is there is any question, it should be why are you trying to silence me if you can't even discuss and present any data to refute the evidence?....



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I am not trying to silence you...I am simply pointing out a truth that when somebody contradicts you you barrage them and the post until it essentially kills it. Who wants to be shouted down all the time? Plus you get insulting and abusive questioning other people's intelligence because they don't agree with you. As for your facts, I will say it again, you cherry pick what you want that supports your conclusions... we all do that but at least i know I do.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Actually that was directed towards centurian. Be that as it may anything, including CO2 in excess becomes a pollutant...Hell drinking too much water can kill you.


Too much of anything can be bad, but that does not equate to to much of everything is "pollution". CO2, just like water is needed for the biodiversity which exists on Earth.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I am not trying to silence you...I am simply pointing out a truth that when somebody contradicts you you barrage them and the post until it essentially kills it. Who wants to be shouted down all the time? Plus you get insulting and abusive questioning other people's intelligence because they don't agree with you. As for your facts, I will say it again, you cherry pick what you want that supports your conclusions... we all do that but at least i know I do.


I gave Regenmacher more than enough civility, he wanted to trample it down and begin with his insults like he always does. Since he can't really refute the data from those scientist who disagree with him, he has to name call them, and indirectly insult and try to demorilize those who disagree with him.

Everytime he has done that, you come to his defense, and yet you never provide any evidence to refute data presented by people like myself.

If anyone has been derailing the thread is the first person that began the ad hominem attacks.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Regardless or who or what is causing the warming, almost everyone agrees that it is occurring.

Mankind will have to adapt, that's what were supposedly good at. People in low lying areas may well have to migrate to other locations, unless they form gills. Siberia will probably be a new land to be populated and developed as will most of NW Canada. If the UN report is correct, there is no stopping it but I hear no long range plans to live with the new global conditions.

It's not as if we definitively find the cause for global warming and all of a sudden, things correct themselves. Global climate change will affect many, if not most around globe, learn to deal with it or you will go the way of the Neanderthal. They couldn't adapt to the changes brought on by the climate and look what happened to them.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Regardless or who or what is causing the warming, almost everyone agrees that it is occurring.
...........


Yes, but there are also signs that we could very well be heading towards another ice age, lets hope it would be a little ice age. The Earth will probably warm some more first, and then go back to another ice age. But only time will tell exactly what will happen..

Meanwhile, we do need to have some plans drawn out because it is true that more changes are coming. They always do. The Earth's climate does not stay in one state for long, it shifts, changes and brings chaos with many of those changes. It has done it in the past for at least 4 billion years, and will continue to do it even if mankind is not there to see it.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Personally I hope that you are right Muaddib, but I am not putting money down on it. I have read reports too and it doesn't look good.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Thanks for agreeing to have an open mind on this. That and waiting until the facts are in before trying to implement a solution were all I was asking anyone to do.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join