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.

 

Global warming conspiracy?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
so your CO2 absorbs but never emits again? where do you think the energy will go? you can delay the loss of heat energy you can't stop it, it's exactly what i said a few posts ago. your heat energy will be released again (in random direction, therefore a lot will go back to lower altitudes and the ground first, but a roughly half of it will beam into space (random direction, not accounting for earth's spheroidal shape).

Therefore, the higher atmosphere will get exactly the same amount of heat energy flowing through it, it's simple conservation of energy. it's either re-emitted or accumulated which is kind of hard because warm bodies and gases tend to radiate.


Of course it emits, but it just absorbs more and the energy emitted is also taken up by other GHGs that are present in the troposphere - such as water vapour, this is then emitted in a random fashion, which is absorbed and randomly emitted etc etc. There is little to stop emitted radiation finding it's way to the cold area of space in the higher levels and this energy is not readily replenished from beneath. Thus this area readily cools.

You are arguing against the basic physics of the models.




posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Global worming is an issue. But it will not ever happen in our life times. So get over it and stop littering.lol
Blame china, and canada because they are the most polluters and they cause the most acid rain because of there industries.

peace



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Of course it emits, but it just absorbs more and the energy emitted is also taken up by other GHGs that are present in the troposphere - such as water vapour, this is then emitted in a random fashion, which is absorbed and randomly emitted etc etc. There is little to stop emitted radiation finding it's way to the cold area of space in the higher levels and this energy is not readily replenished from beneath. Thus this area readily cools.

You are arguing against the basic physics of the models.



yes, exactly, take any closed volume and over long (infinite, actually but long will do) time, energy input equals energy output, provided you aren't missing any components.

since heat input is determined primarily by the sun, any amount of greenhouse effect will not change energy output, just the amount of heat trapped within the atmosphere, not its rate of throughput.

iow, if what i said conflicts with 'this model's physics', the model is violating the first rule of thermodynamics, concervation of energy.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
iow, if what i said conflicts with 'this model's physics', the model is violating the first rule of thermodynamics, concervation of energy.


Yes, what you said - that mesospheric cooling conflicts with AGW - does conflict with the models, because that's what the models show (not just one, but almost all of them). The models are based on physical laws. They were showing cooling of the higher atmos./warming of troposphere, before the data showed these effects, the models made predictions that were validated.

I don't think the models state that energy is being destroyed...



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Conspiracy? Well southpark made a satire show on just this issue...

Manbearpig... and Im super cearl!!!


But seriously, everything we burn, all the garbage that is sunken into our waters, and into the ground makes me sick...
Could we just be a cancer to this planet? And global warming is just the kemo therapy for the planets inner workings? Or is it all just a pile of rubbish.. Im no expert here, so I can only say what Ive been programed to think...



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
i acknowledge that the models predicted cooling in the high atmosphere, the underlying reasons have to be different, however, for the aforementioned reasons, unless i'm missing a big part of the picture.

i don't think you have to openly state anything, as long as it's implied... anyways, i asked for a prediction and you linked one, therefore, upper atmospheric cooling does not contradict the models and my point is moot.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
WHY DO PEOPLE CHERRY PICK WHAT THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH? IF YOU BOTHER TO READ THE WHOLE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT, YOU WILL SEE WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY - IF YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO DO THAT, I CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO READ YOUR REPLY



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

WHY DO PEOPLE CHERRY PICK WHAT THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH? IF YOU BOTHER TO READ THE WHOLE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT, YOU WILL SEE WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY - IF YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO DO THAT, I CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO READ YOUR REPLY


If what you claim is true, why is it the the main benefactor of your theory, the US, is in denial over global warming? Shouldn't they be on the bandwagon in order to stop China "catching up" to them?



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
do you watch/listen to the news?
dubya has jumped on the bandwagon, as has blair - then a couple of shakes later they are speaking about raising taxes, and saying that the "3rd" world must develop and use alternate energy sources....



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaker

Originally posted by budski

WHY DO PEOPLE CHERRY PICK WHAT THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH? IF YOU BOTHER TO READ THE WHOLE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT, YOU WILL SEE WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY - IF YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO DO THAT, I CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO READ YOUR REPLY


If what you claim is true, why is it the the main benefactor of your theory, the US, is in denial over global warming? Shouldn't they be on the bandwagon in order to stop China "catching up" to them?


READ THE WHOLE OPENING STATEMENT - I DO NOT "CLAIM" ANYTHING - I MERELY POSE SOME QUESTIONS IN THE HOPE THAT A REASONABLE DISCUSSION CAN TAKE PLACE



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

do you watch/listen to the news?
dubya has jumped on the bandwagon, as has blair - then a couple of shakes later they are speaking about raising taxes, and saying that the "3rd" world must develop and use alternate energy sources....


I don't know what news you are watching, but I have not heard of GW committing to Kioto or setting a reduction of emissions target. All he's done is try to appear to be on board to tide over public opinion by claiming to be partaking in some ethanol scheme. Looks like he's fooled you too!



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I would argue that the western world is so terrified of losing its economic monopoly to emerging industrial nations that they seek to inspire fear across the globe in order to preserve the status quo, the attitude being "we've got ours, but you can't have yours" or else you will "destroy the planet"


This what you claimed didn't you? I rest my case.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
can you read/speak english??

A statement saying "I would argue" is not a claim - it is an opinion



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaker

Originally posted by budski



I don't know what news you are watching, but I have not heard of GW committing to Kioto or setting a reduction of emissions target. All he's done is try to appear to be on board to tide over public opinion by claiming to be partaking in some ethanol scheme. Looks like he's fooled you too!


can't spell either - Kyoto, fool. And btw, Kyoto is old news - the US would have reduced carbon by 0.4% by signing up, it was another P.R. exercise



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
we all have heard about
-global warming's gonna kill us
-the osone hole will let the sun kill us
-the water level droping/rising again killing us^^
-polution and many other stuff

well i can't say these stuff aint true and yea it is probably our fault but i doubt it will hapen the days we live in,maybe our grand grand son's will get the "luck"^^
the only thing that bugs me is how humans are always the "bad" with poluting,cuting trees,etc.
how about animals?when there were onyl animals how the natural balance was so perfect?i mean predators eating other animals,thats enought to get some species in danger aint it?



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
can you read/speak english??

A statement saying "I would argue" is not a claim - it is an opinion


What do you think?



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
nope, don't think you can

but keep it coming - I'm getting points for all your bullplop posts



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I noticed you had to revert to grammatical errors, the last refuge of the damned, when you realised GW hasn't made any real commitments to the "gw" effort.

Shouldn't the US be one of the instigators behind the "Global Warming Conspiracy" as you put it, according to your logic? Why has he been, an arguably still is, opposed to it?

Your argument is ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaker
I noticed you had to revert to grammatical errors, the last refuge of the damned, when you realised GW hasn't made any real commitments to the "gw" effort.

Shouldn't the US be one of the instigators behind the "Global Warming Conspiracy" as you put it, according to your logic? Why has he been, an arguably still is, opposed to it?

Your argument is ridiculous.


the starting point of the educated would be more accurate.
If you had bothered to think about it, you would understand that the new bush&blair agenda in support of GW (btw gw is global warming - GB is george bush) is politically motivated with the aim of raising more taxes for war. Please try to look into these things before you make statements, or you'll live your life with your foot in your mouth.

oops - too late



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by speaker
I noticed you had to revert to grammatical errors, the last refuge of the damned, when you realised GW hasn't made any real commitments to the "gw" effort.

Shouldn't the US be one of the instigators behind the "Global Warming Conspiracy" as you put it, according to your logic? Why has he been, an arguably still is, opposed to it?

Your argument is ridiculous.


the starting point of the educated would be more accurate.
If you had bothered to think about it, you would understand that the new bush&blair agenda in support of GW (btw gw is global warming - GB is george bush) is politically motivated with the aim of raising more taxes for war. Please try to look into these things before you make statements, or you'll live your life with your foot in your mouth.

oops - too late


You should really take your own advice. GW is George W, as in George W Bush champ! GW is a reluctant supporter, not the mastermind behind the whole thing! Try and come up with a way to fit this fact into your ridiculous argument.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join