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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Did you see that pending post that EXXON now accepts global warming. Mow maybe that will shut Muaddib up....nah, won't happen. He's still looking for WMD as well.




posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Did you see that pending post that EXXON now accepts global warming. Mow maybe that will shut Muaddib up....nah, won't happen. He's still looking for WMD as well.


When did I questioned Global Warming? even if the phrase is being misused because while in some places there is warming in others there is cooling.

Are we going through Climate Change as we speak?; yes, I have been one of the people posting threads about this since 2004 in these forums, although my views have changed a bit the more I looked at the data.

BTW grover...I dind't know you relied on Exxon to get information on Global warming.....

I wonder why is it that you don't tackle the data and information I have provided, among some other people, about "mankind not being the cause for Global Warming"?....

Is your argument that weak? or maybe is it that you don't have any idea on how to present any data and evidence to discuss the topic, like always?...




[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
He is just too too easy. He rises to the bait every time.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Wow, nice comeback...a one liner with nothing more than more rethoric, and an attempt at derailing the thread. Coming from you that's exactly what is expected....
Bye, bye Grover...



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Actually I was telling the truth...getting his goat up is like taking candy from a baby.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Some more interesting information about the IPCC report, and what some of the scientists who reviewed the report have to say about it.


Real report under wraps

By DR. TIM BALL, GUEST COLUMNIST

We are told hundreds of scientists played a role in writing the UN climate science report released last week. We are also told it proves that scientists agree -- human release of carbon dioxide is the primary cause of climate change and a catastrophe looms.

Fortunately, this is nonsense.

The report just released is merely the 'Summary for Policymakers,' an executive summary of the main report that no one outside a select group sworn to secrecy knows the contents of until May.

Why would the main report and its summary not be issued together?

According to official IPCC procedures, the main science report shall be modified after publication of the summary, so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary. But surely it is the summary that should be edited to reflect the contents of the science report it is supposedly summarizing.
.............
To understand why the IPCC does this, Canadians need to appreciate that the summary is not a scientifically neutral document. It is written to fulfill political objectives in support of carbon dioxide-reduction negotiations.


Oh and people are going to love this part.


IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains: The summary "represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists."

Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.

www.ottawasun.com...

Oh, so only about 30 scientists put their input in the summary?....

Humm, I wonder why?...


This unorthodox reporting procedure led to the "Chapter 8 controversy" in 1995, in which significant and unwarranted modification of the IPCC science report was known to have been made before it was issued, so as to conform to the summary.

The fact many scientists were involved in reviewing the science report to be released in the spring does not necessarily mean these scientists agree with the report. NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed the IPCC ignored his comments entirely.

NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official IPCC reviewer, speaks about his own experience: "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying. It is not like the scientific press, where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."



So this is a concensus of the world's government representatives, and not of scientists.

Again, the question stands. Why is it that governments like China, and India among others, are not asked to control their emissions of greenhouse gaes, knowing full well that China in 2009, will be surpassing U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions, or that 7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world can be found in China, or the fact that the most polluted rivers and lakes in the world can be found in China also?....


[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Again, the question stands. Why is it that governments like China, and India among others, are not asked to control their emissions of greenhouse gaes, knowing full well that China in 2009, will be surpassing U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions?....

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]


To be completely honest, I dont agree with giving countries like this the green light to pollute as much as they wish. I appreciate your links provided on the amount of pollution that China produces as this problem is in no way linked soley to the US -although we are the biggest polluter in the world.

That being said, China and India (while growing rapidly) are still developing nations. They haven't had a 100 years of industry as we have and haven't built up their infestructure as we have done. To deny them the same benefits we have enjoyed over the past 100 years would be hypocritical.

Look man, I really dont want to just butt heads with you. You and I have opposing views on most things on this forum. Instead of throwing thinly veiled insults at each other, lets actually discuss these things and figure out why we feel the way we do about them. I dont follow everyone else on this topic as you insinutated earlier about how everyone is on the "blame makind for it all bandwagon". I do believe that to be an uninformed statement as there are MANY people who have been studying this far longer than it has been a topic of public debate. I have been studying this since the early 90's when I took great interest in it. Everything that I have seen and learned lead me to believe that we do play a role in affecting our climate.

Perhaps I come off as harsh sometimes, and for that I truly apologize. I am very passionate about this topic. You do raise some very good points - this I must admit. Pointing out other countries environmental habits is a very good contribution to this thread.

I do want to make it clear again that I dont believe that man is the SOLE cause behind global warming. Nor do I believe that only our co2 emmissions are affecting climate. I believe we are damaging the Earth on several fronts:

deforestation - destruction of the rain forest

strip mining

sucking resources out of the land

driving species to extinction

dumping hundreds of tons of polluted materials into the ocean, causing entire "dead" zones where nothing can live - I belive this is the biggest damage done from man as we get most of our breathing air from ocean algae - if I remember this correctly.

pumping thousands of tons of particulates into the atmosphere (more than just co2): mercury, lead, co2, carbon monoxide, etc...

building dams - although I prefer the damage caused by dams compared to the tons and tons of coal we have to burn to produce electricity

an unreal amount of garbage and waste we bury in our landfills

ALL of these things combined, I believe, have a profound effect on our environment and our climate. Global Warming may very well be a natural occuring thing, all I am saying is that we are helping it come about faster, or at least pushing it in an unnatural direction. This is an issue that we have to deal with, whether man made or not. Millions of lives are at stake and our very lives could be too. Do you know what would happen if our agricultural base was wiped out?? We would starve... period. Not too many people know how to work the land to produce food - especially dry arid land as we will someday face if we dont change our ways.

We have spent over a decade fighing people opposed to this ideology - first GW didn't even exist. Those were the debates that raged at first - the mere thought that the earth was heating up was preposterous!! But years later, lo and behold - it is true - the earth IS heating up. This we can all agree on, yet there are people who still saying this is hogwash. Even you Muaddib, have admitted that GW exists.

Next, the big debate raged for years whether man played a role in it or not. Everything that I have seen, read or heard is pointing to the greater body of scientists around the world that agree that man does play a role - even Exxon (of ALL things) released a statement today saying we DO play a role and something must be done to stop it!!! Wow, did I ever put my foot in MY mouth when I read that little gem - after all the villifying I did of Exxon in other threads - and this one. When they come out and say something needs to be done, that scares me more than ever.


Bottom line Muaddib, you and I dont agree on this topic - I have no issues with that. I truly would like to understand your views without throwing mud back and forth. When we bring politics into this, the liberal in me and the conservative in you go into defensive mode trying to figure out how we can attack each others ideas rather than actually reading and trying to understand them. So, I implore you - AND everyone else contributing to this thread - lets stop the bickering and the political baiting and actually discuss this thing. Lets even stop debating whether or not man has a role - rather what we should be doing as responsible beings on this rock.

We know that GW exists.
We know that GW contributes to climate changes.
We know that as GW speeds up and continues, mankind could be up a creek without a paddle.

We know that mankind can affect his ENVIRONMENT at least on a local level - I TRULY hope we can agree on this one point here. There are entire sections of land in the industrial district here that are cesspools of toxic materials that would take huge amounts of money to restore.

I think that mankind has made HUGE strides on this rock to improve our standard of living and our very way of life. I would like us to continue making that progress without killing ourselves off.

I look forward to ALL your thoughts on this.

What can we do to prepare for this, if not alter or change it? If you dont think we can alter it, fine, but what do you suggest we do?



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
We can all agree to disagree.

Of course pollution of the environment is not good, and being responsible towards the environment should always be part of our development as a spieces, but it is not as easy as it sounds.

The fact is, Climate Change does happen all the time. For the most part, the history of the Earth has been chaotic, with only some periods when mankind was able to thrive.

We are in another episode of the chaos that can very well change the face of the planet.

Change will always be a part of the history of this planet, hell it is a fact that occurs on every planet. Whether we like it or not, those changes are not always good for mankind, or the other species which are part of Earth's ecosystem.

I have said it many times in the past, and will continue to say it again. No matter what is done, even if we stop all greenhouse gas emissions, and stop everything that is polluting the Earth, which would be good but will take time to accomplish, we will not stop Climate Change.

The surface of planets are prone to "catastrophes" from nature, and the forces that rule the Universe, and nomatter how much some people would like for mankind to be "omnipotent", we are not. We are not even a type 1 civilization yet. We are barely a type 0 civilization.

Some of the ways we can assure that as many people on Earth will have food to feed themselves whenever any major changes happen, would be to grow food underground, or to store enough seeds to plant them later after these changes have happened.

All those billions of dollars which have been used to try to blame mankind for the current Climate Change we are going through, should have been spent on storing seeds, building underground greenhouses, or even both. In this way our food sources do not get devastated by any major changes in Climate.

Temporary, or even long term underground cities should also be taken into consideration. It might sound too far-fetched and unrealistic, but it is not, and that would be one of the few ways we can avoid certain calamities without leaving the planet.

There are already some underground cities which have been built in some countries.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Those are some of the contigencies which we should be working on, instead of spending billions of dollars on bickering back and forth.

At the end, the only sure way to avoid any major Climate Changes, is to leave the planet, and even being able to leave the solar system. Of course, it will take a longer period of time for us as a species to be able to come up with the technology that will allow us to leave the planet, but in time we will have to do it.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Of course pollution of the environment is not good, and being responsible towards the environment should always be part of our development as a spieces, but it is not as easy as it sounds.

The fact is, Climate Change does happen all the time. For the most part, the history of the Earth has been chaotic, with only some periods when mankind was able to thrive.



Now this I DO agree with you 100% - at least the part where the climate will change whether or not we want it to. Earth HAS had a very violent past in regard to weather and climate.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Some of the ways we can assure that as many people on Earth will have food to feed themselves whenever any major changes happen, would be to grow food underground, or to store enough seeds to plant them later after these changes have happened.

All those billions of dollars which have been used to try to blame mankind for the current Climate Change we are going through, should have been spent on storing seeds, building underground greenhouses, or even both. In this way our food sources do not get devastated by any major changes in Climate.


Interesting that you should mention this, as I was just today reading about a project to take seeds from around the world and place them in a "vault" incase agriculture is wiped out thru climate change or thru a nuclear disaster, etc. There is a thread about this very thing right now on ATS:


]Doomsday Vault Being Prepared


From source thread link
The seed vault will be built 120m (364ft) inside a mountain on Spitsbergen, one of four islands that make up Svalbard.




Originally posted by Muaddib
Temporary, or even long term underground cities should also be taken into consideration. It might sound too far-fetched and unrealistic, but it is not, and that would be one of the few ways we can avoid certain calamities without leaving the planet.


Another intriguing idea, one I hadn't thought of. If we were truly to move underground however, we need to stop burning fuel for energy otherwise we would have no air to breathe. On that note, how would we produce oxygen in the quantaties needed to support human life - let alone all the other life that makes up our ecosystem if we lived in underground cities? Again, fascinating idea, but a whole new slew of problems none the less.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Those are some of the contigencies which we should be working on, instead of spending billions of dollars on bickering back and forth.

At the end, the only sure way to avoid any major Climate Changes, is to leave the planet, and even being able to leave the solar system. Of course, it will take a longer period of time for us as a species to be able to come up with the technology that will allow us to leave the planet, but in time we will have to do it.


Again, I agree that bickering is accomplishing nothing - what ever your beliefs are. I would love to see the day when man truly leaves this planet - unfortunately I dont believe I will be gifted with that long of a run. As our population swells and our thirst for advancement grows, we will have no choice but to leave to exploit other untapped resources in our solar system: i.e. asteroid belts, huge deposts of minerals, chemicals and raw materials strewn throughout the cosmos in unfathomable quantities.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
There are already some vast underground cities which exist, and where you can easily breath in and live underground.

For example in China.


The Underground City

Beneath the ancient city of Beijing, an underground city of definite proportions has already begun to emerge. There are factories, stores, guesthouses, restaurants, hospitals, schools, theaters, reading-rooms, a roller skating rink, a grain and oil warehouse, and a mushroom cultivation farm. These underground production and service facilities cover a total area of 850,000 square meters and make use of more than 1,000 anti-air raid structures.

www.china.org.cn...

The Russian government is making some plans for building some underground cities.


The 4TH “UNDERGROUND CITY 2007” International Exhibition
With the organizational support of: Russian Tunnelling Association

A traditional annual event to demonstrate experience in the development of the underground space for the creation of city infrastructure, solution of urgent issues of the development of large cities, increase of the investment attractiveness of multi-purpose underground complexes.

Exhibition Sections:
Investment projects
Projects of facilities construction implemented in the development of the underground space in Moscow, other Russian cities and abroad. Projects of future underground complexes
Construction of tunnels for expressways and engineering networks using new methods
Technologies of construction of underground city complexes and city tunnels (building envelopes, foundation and pile engineering, soil densification, water drainage and pumping, new methods of construction of tunnels for engineering networks, drilling and blasting operations)
New subway lines in combination with underground city facilities (Moscow-City and others)
.............................

www.city-build.ru...

There are some underground cities in the U.S. such as in Seattle, in the U.K, and some other countries.

But we should really be considering the idea of having these as temporal, or if in need permanent housing.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogansRun
.............
driving species to extinction


There are tons of other natural phenomenon which are causing species to be driven to extinction. The increase of solar flares, and the overall increase of solar flux is one of the mayor reasons for these extinctions. For example, many species of frogs are known to be affected, and to be dying by these natural changes.

I am not saying that mankind's activities are not also affecting the environment, but what man is doing, is small in comparison to what nature, the Sun and other forces in the Universe are doing.


Originally posted by LogansRun
dumping hundreds of tons of polluted materials into the ocean, causing entire "dead" zones where nothing can live - I belive this is the biggest damage done from man as we get most of our breathing air from ocean algae - if I remember this correctly.


Those dead zones are most probably caused by the increase in volcano activities around the world in our oceans. Not to mention that since we have been coming out of an ice age, large amounts of methane gas, and CO2, are being released by the oceans and lakes around the world.

In fact methane is far worse greenhosue gas than CO2 by a factor of 20.


Published: 09:09, January 09, 2007

Japanese scientists discover huge undersea lava plateau
A team of Japanaese scientists said Tuesday they had discovered one of the world's biggest lava plateaus under the Indian Ocean, using an unmanned undersea probe they developed.

The plateau is located in the so-called Mid Ridge in the Indian Ocean below a point 800 kilometers (500 miles) east of Mauritius, said Professor Tamaki Ura, director of the University of Tokyo's Underwater Technology Research Center.

"This is presumed to be not only the biggest lava plateau in the Indian Ocean but also one of the biggest in the world," Ura said. "The vehicle also spotted hydrothermal eruptions on the northern part."

The flat plateau measures about 14 kilometers (8.8 miles) in length and 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles) in width at a depth of about 2,700 meters (8,860 feet), according to the team from the university.

Ura said the plateau was covered with lava some 300 meters (980 feet) thick.

www.physorg.com...


Source: University Of California - Davis
Date: August 30, 2006

Greenhouse Methane Released From Ice Age Ocean
Science Daily — Periods of warming temperatures during the last ice age triggered the release of methane from beneath the ocean, according to U.S. and French researchers. Once in the atmosphere, the methane would have acted as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas.

"This is a new source of methane which has not been looked at before," said Tessa Hill, now assistant professor of geology at UC Davis and at the university's Bodega Marine Laboratory.

Off the California coast -- and elsewhere around the world -- natural petroleum seeps release oil, tar and gas into the bottom of the ocean. Some methane gas finds its way to the surface, while the tar sinks back to the bottom.

www.sciencedaily.com...

From 2006

Gas escaping from ocean floor may drive global warming
(Santa Barbara, Calif.) -- Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

www.eurekalert.org...


Source: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: September 8, 2006

Siberian Lakes Burp 'Time-bomb' Greenhouse Gas
Science Daily — Frozen bubbles in Siberian lakes are releasing methane, a greenhouse gas, at rates that appear to be “... five times higher than previously estimated” and acting as a positive feedback to climate warming, said Katey Walter, in a paper published today in the journal Nature.

www.sciencedaily.com...

As a matter of fact, off the coast of Oregon hypoxic dead zones have been occurring off the Oregon coast for 5 years since 2006.


Scientists: Recurring 'Dead Zone' off Oregon is Spreading, Suggests New Trend

Corvallis, Oregon (Jul 27, 2006 16:19 EST) A hypoxic "dead zone" has formed off the Oregon Coast for the fifth time in five years, according to researchers at Oregon State University.

A fundamental new trend in atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns in the Pacific Northwest appears to have begun, scientists say, and apparently is expanding its scope beyond Oregon waters.

This year for the first time, the effect of the low-oxygen zone is also being seen in coastal waters off Washington, researchers at OSU and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary indicate.

www.underwatertimes.com...

Do you actually know what happened in that same zone in 2001?


April 5, 2001
Web posted at: 6:28 p.m. EDT (2228 GMT)

SILVER SPRING, Maryland (CNN) -- Scientists are monitoring what they say appears to be an underwater eruption in the Pacific Ocean about 100 miles off the coast of Oregon and California.

The event was detected by the Navy's Sound Surveillance System, an underwater network of hydrophone arrays originally installed nearly 50 years ago for use in antisubmarine warfare, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.

archives.cnn.com...

Underwater volcanic activity has been increasing and it has been found that these activities are a lot stronger now than we previously thought.

In 2005, in that same zone there was a swarm of earthquakes in the thousands.


Swarm of Small Quakes off Oregon Coast
posted: 05 March 2005
10:07 am ET

NEWPORT, Ore. (AP) _ An earthquake "swarm'' that began last weekend has resulted in thousands of small earthquakes off the Oregon coast in recent days but the size of the quakes did not pose any tsunami threat, officials said.

Scientists from Oregon State University said they are joining National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers on Saturday for a cruise to investigate a site on the undersea Juan de Fuca Ridge northwest of Astoria called the Endeavor segment.
..............
"We suspect what happened was that magma pushed up into the crust and the lava may have broken the surface,'' Dziak said.

www.livescience.com...


Record hotspot found underwater
Scientists working in the southern Atlantic Ocean have found a 407 °C hydrothermal vent, the hottest yet known on an ocean floor. Expedition leader Andrea Koschinsky of International University in Bremen , Germany , and her team found the hydrothermal vent just south of the Equator on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at a depth of 2,990 metres.

news.nature.com...

You have to be a subscriber to read that story though.

Underwater volcanoes have been found in the artic too.


The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep

The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meter beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps. This is the site of seafloor spreading that is actively separating Europe from North America, and was the goal of the international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition) with two research icebreakers, the "USCGC Healy" from USA and the German "PFS Polarstern". Aboard were scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions. The scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge would exhibit "anemic" magmatism. Instead, surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the West and the East of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges were found. These results require a fundamental rethinking of the mechanisms of seafloor generation at midocean ridges (Nature, January 16 and June 26).

Source link


November 04, 2004

Iceland volcano affects flights

A spectacular volcanic eruption beneath Iceland’s biggest glacier has spewed a column of ash and gas more than seven miles into the air, forcing airlines to divert flights to avoid the blast.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

I wonder what could be the reason for Oceans around the world to be getting hotter.....and you should know that "the oceans" is the major cause on Earth to affect the Climate...

But you don't hear any of this from the "let's blame mankind crowd" do you?...


Originally posted by LogansRun
pumping thousands of tons of particulates into the atmosphere (more than just co2): mercury, lead, co2, carbon monoxide, etc...


Which is a lot less than the 0.28% of mankind's contribution of CO2 of the 1% of trace gases which exists in the atmosphere...

Why do you think the "let's blame mankind crowd" are only using CO2 as the main excuse to blame mankind for global warming?


Originally posted by LogansRun
an unreal amount of garbage and waste we bury in our landfills


That is bad, and smells bad, but doesn't affect the climate.

If you read the articles i excerpted above, and if you do your own research, you will find what is really feeding, and making Climate Change more rapid, and it is not mankind.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Mod Edit: Shortened long URL link which is distorting page width.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Here's some info on the theory I mentioned earlier that global warming is affected by the cosmic ray flux striking the earth and affecting cloud formation.

Cosmic rays cause global warming?


Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.


Then there's also this article:

another article casting doubt on a human cause ...


He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.


So, if this theory is true, no amount of human intervention has or is going to affect what's happening. Because to lower the earth's temperatures, we'd have to have more cosmic rays, which is not something humans can control.


[edit on 2/12/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Also hot air from people who don't even understand the science behind what they are trying to repudiate contribute to global warming.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Like you?

What are you basing these (baseless, no doubt) comments on. Or does it make you angry that people won't just blindly accept your pet theory?

Careful, or I might have to mention that "elitist" word again. Or maybe the words/phrases "dogmatic", "luddite" and "tunnel vision" could also apply?

......


[edit on 2/12/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I am really not worried from someone who thinks that oil is a renewable resource.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
It seems like both sides have determined the Major cause of Global warming and will not bother to find out definitive data to prove their point. While sure, humans are contributing alot of CO2 to the atomosphere by it's activities, that does not account for all of the tempreature increases we see. Surely there are other sources of Global warming contributiing to the mix, shouldn't we investigate all of them to be sure what is the major threat, if there is a threat at all.

If I had list of suspects for global warming that included all of these:

The Sun
Cosmic Rays
Increased underwater volcanic activity
Methane release
Normal weather variations/ cycles It's not like this is the first warming to happen.
Human burning of fossil fuels
Human burning/ destruction of rainforests
Other human activity


I would investigate ALL of them.

Is is great that mankind pollutes? I don't think anyone is in favor of that, we would all like to have renewable, clean sources of energy.

One thing I think is sure to happen is that Humanity in it's vanity, will try to stop global warming and ignore dealing with the reprecussions of what that warming will bring. We will expend so much effort on something even the UN panel says cannot be stopped that little will be done to help in those areas where G.W. will hit the most.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Decided to start new thread on this instead.

[edit on 2/26/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Decided to start new thread on this instead.

[edit on 2/26/2007 by centurion1211]


I will look forward to debunking what you have to say!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
trust me it won't be hard.

Oh centurian I owe you an apology...I looked and it was actually rr conservative who said he believed that oil was actually a renewable resource, not you... BUT somehow i tend to equate the two of you together except that one is more intelligent than the other.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Then look forward to debunking the actual power consumption figures from Gore's personal residence, which have only increased since he made his mock-umentary. As someone posted on my thread, you'd think Gore would want to show us the way to energy conservation by using alternative power sources and perhaps cutting back on his own consumption. But no, not this elitist. As always it is do what Gore says and not what he does for himself. It's always the little people that shoulder Gore's burden.

Sorry, but this time (again) your boy has really stuck his face in it. And by the looks of him has also managed to swallow a lot of it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join