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.

 

Climate summary fuels worry

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).


No-one in climate science seriously thinks water vapour takes up 98% of the greenhouse effect. You might find that on a particular type of website though. The other figure sounds more like the scientific position, CO2 is generally found to possess about 8-24% of the GE effect (due to overlapping IR absorptivity).

But this is interesting.

It clearly shows the contradictory and illogical position you hold. You really don't understand this stuff, as if you did, these contradictions would be hard to exhibit:



Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology


c.f. earlier


Since 1750, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuels, has risen to about 380 parts per million from 286 parts per million. (sounds like alot, but thats still only 33%.


.117% != 33%

A slight bit of error in the .117% calculation.

Cheers.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Hey Beach

Let me know when that camp is officialy up and running.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Im with you 100% man. What boils my blood is the solution is always taxation. Do the scientist's or politician's suffer for paying more for
fuel , or carbon taxation. NO. just us poor bastards.

If They are so hell bent on telling us we are destroying the planet , come up with a solution that doesnt F*ck the hard working people of this world who are all ready strugeling to eke out an existance.

How Dare George bush and Gordon support carbon reduction and to some degree carbon TAX , (mark my words it will happen) When together they have wasted Billions of pounds and dollars on fighitng a pointless war.

Imagine For one second that this money had been invested in a reliable alternative energy source, !!!!!!!!!!

I for one will not pay any taxes introduced in relation to global warming, its time the people took back our 2 nations. Rid us of the scum which pray upon us like cancer.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tombangelta
 



No argument there. (Aside from how hard Scientist work
)
Taxation is not the answer, education is.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Ahh...I see. So thousands of the worlds top scientists have got it all wrong huh? I guess this higher education & specialization thang is way over-rated. Plus there's that conspiracy thing too. We don't need university educated scientist working on this global warming thing - what we really need is a few qualified sanitation workers and a few oil men - that should do the trick. Problem solved.....wasn't that easy?

Ever dawned on you that the few who ARE selling the 'Global Warming Is A Sham' story, are the ones manipulating you? The oil men, the car industry, and others who stand to continue making billions via fossil fuels while the planet drys up? Do you REALLY thing they give a damn about anything other than their bank accounts??

Don't fall for it...

J.


[edit on 15-11-2007 by jimbo999]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by jimbo999]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by welivefortheson
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


jesus christ man,hundreds of thousands of scientists have done their own research into ice cores,do you think its just a few people?.
they have to drill very deep into the ice core,taking yearsthe deeper you go,it takes time
like i said i have seen many fully scientifically validated reports into ice core readings.

i have only had the internet for two weeks,and i dont have a photographic memory.

so im not gonna waste my time spoon feeding you the information you should be looking for yourself.



hundreds of thousands??? WOW thats alot of scientists. Did not even know there were that many climatologist/meteorologist/geologists out there.

OK, answer me this. Whats the starting point? What is the point in history taht says we have a perfect temperature and thats what we should attain to achieving? Who is to say that we are currently too cold and the earth is supposed to be more temperate globally, more condusive to farming in Greenland? Remember...they named Greenland "GREEN" for a reason.

Listen this thread is not going anywehre, its stay on file. So take your time....Find me all that information to spoon feed me. Make me change my mind.


Errmm..'Greenland' was named 'Greenland' to try and tempt Icelanders into moving there. The original explorers of Greenland (Vikings) knew it was a big lump of ice - but didn't want others to know... Geez - learn the facts...

Scientists also KNOW what the earths temperatures have been like for something like the last 800,000 years - and the carbon dioxide levels are right now higher than they've ever been in that 800,000 years. Fact. CO2 levels have also only risen rapidly since the begining of the Industrial Revolution. Fact. So - is global warming man-made? Of course it is.

Still don't believe me? Check this:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Get your facts straight.

J.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by jimbo999]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Since 1750, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuels, has risen to about 380 parts per million from 286 parts per million. (sounds like alot, but thats still only 33%.


.117% != 33%

A slight bit of error in the .117% calculation.

Cheers.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by melatonin]


That was supposed to read a 33% increase, from 286 parts per million to 380 parts per million.


Plus you proved my point about linking threads. You can find anything on here to say what ever. You believe what you want to believe, you post what you want to post.

But nice try anyway.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Errmm..'Greenland' was named 'Greenland' to try and tempt Icelanders into moving there. The original explorers of Greenland (Vikings) knew it was a big lump of ice - but didn't want others to know... Geez - learn the facts...

Scientists also KNOW what the earths temperatures have been like for something like the last 800,000 years - and the carbon dioxide levels are right now higher than they've ever been in that 800,000 years. Fact. CO2 levels have also only risen rapidly since the begining of the Industrial Revolution. Fact. So - is global warming man-made? Of course it is.

Still don't believe me? Check this:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Get your facts straight.

J.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by jimbo999]


Are you kidding me???? Greenland was named by the Vikings, not the Icelanders. I will get back to you later, I have to go home now.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Hi Trader, No conspiracy. I posted the thread on Arctic Ocean currents because I saw it on the Fox news site. I no sooner posted it and it was gone. I heard nothing about it on the news or anywhere else. I'm glad I posted when I did or it would have been ignored (by the GW crowd) and forgotten. You really don't get much news that contradicts GW and not by accident IMHO! The news media has the idea that we need to have those carbon tax laws enacted! Sooner the better!



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
That was supposed to read a 33% increase, from 286 parts per million to 380 parts per million.


And therefore the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere directly attributed to human activity is of the order of 33%.

Not .117%

Nice try.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Did you read the article???? that was just an increase in amount. The amount is a part of the whole and still only measure .117% of the overall amount. Re-read the article and you will see what was said.

The reason the original settlers left greenland was they could no longer harvest their crops. FACT!

so you get your facts straight.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 



Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

What I did find is that you essentially plagiarised the original post from the website. At least quote it, rather than copy & paste.

The problem here is that the website is wrong. You even showed it earlier, but you just don't know it (or will admit it).

If there was a 33% increase in CO2 from pre-industrial to current day, which is due to human activity, then a guesstimate says that about 30% of atmospheric CO2 is directly attributable to human activity.

33% != .117%, no matter how you spin it.

Lets put it another way, you might understand this. If you have $3000 in your bank account, and I deposit $1000 in that account. 25% is directly attributable to my activity. Yep? Not about .1%? I didn't want to do this, as I'm highly trained dangerous weapon with a calculator...

If we take 286ppm ---> 383ppm (which is about this years total) as the increase, then we have 97ppm increase. Therefore, 97/383 = ca. 25% is directly attributable to human activity.

Again, 25% != .117%

We're not even in the same ballpark. As I said, it is of the order of 33%, not tenths of a percent. Humungous error with the .117%.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Are you kidding me???? Greenland was named by the Vikings, not the Icelanders.


Where do you think the Icelanders came from? I'm sorry but you can't use this as an argument. What Jimbo posted in regards to this is spot on.

From Eirik the Red's Saga

In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, “Because,” said he, “men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.”
Source

The name was given as a public relation's move. This whole 'Greenland used to be green that's why it's called Greenland' business is revisionism, perpetrated by opponents of global warming. However, there was a point in history when Greenland was actually green.

From BioEd Online, reposted from the journal Nature

Greenland is known to have once been green — plant fossils dating to 2.4 million years ago have been found in the far northeast of the country. But, surprisingly, the DNA evidence for plant life stops at 450,000 years ago. Researchers say the lack of younger DNA suggests that this portion of the land has been covered by ice ever since — and that goes against the prevailing view of Greenland's climatic history.
Source

So Greenland was really green, but people weren't around to witness it.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I've read just about every argument on global warming on these forums, yet no one seems to mention the fact that science/govt attempted to modify the weather in the past and maybe even succeeded. Theres a bunch of stuff about the experiments they did on the net. In Vietnam and other locations around the globe.

How does anyone here know if they succeeded? Maybe they did.

I've looked into this "global warming" scheme and I just dont buy it. Too many holes and a lot of it just doesn't add up.
On the other hand I dont fully buy the theory that what we are seeing happen is just another cycle of the earth either.

I think there needs to be more investigation into weather modification to work out whats going on here.
From a conspiracy point of view, it makes perfect sense if both sides are arguing the validity of their "theories" and missing the real cause of climate change.

I believe we are much more advanced technologically than is being let out.
Tesla made references/statements to weather modification many years ago. I for one wouldn't totally ignore the possibility that weather modification hasn't been achieved.

Both sides of the argument can pull out all sorts of information backing their claims. Its man made, or its cycles.
I like to keep an open mind and maybe it is man made, but not some accident of the industrial age, but a well constructed technology from the industrial age that is being used to shape opinions, policy's and the future of the human race.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by welivefortheson
i want people to remember something,

C02 when emitted takes 27 years to cycle into the atmosphere and attain a state able to add to the green house affect.

so we are experiencing the affects of 1980 at the moment.


Please provide credible evidence of this alleged 27 year cycle. I have heard many outrageous claims when it comes to climate change and this is new one to this old man. More disinformation from that Realclimate environmental activist site?


[edit on 11/15/2007 by TheAvenger]


i have never visited that website,i have never seen al gores documentary.
dont try to attack the credibility of GW proponents,you wont win.

i got the 27 years lag from sir david attenborough
en.wikipedia.org...

here is just one example.
findarticles.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
what is so complicated about global warming?.

the greenhouse effect-atmospheric gasses trap the suns heat,causing thermal energy to be retained on the planet/moons surface.
en.wikipedia.org...

you can see the process taking place on every planet and moon in the universe.

venus has undertaken a run away greenhouse effect,mars the opposite.

is someone going to tell me that increasing the % of greenhouse gases and reducing a planets potential to absorb greenhouse gases isnt going to cause an increase in temperature?.

i can find no credible source as to the 98& water vapour claim

if water vapour is such an influence in absorbing thermal radiation,then the reduced rate of pan evaporation around the world we have experienced post 70's should have actually reduced temperatures as a result of less water vapour being in the atmosphere.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Dammit man.........how many times do I have to tell you. The # I am referring to is just the increase for that #. After the 33% increase it still only makes up .117% of the atmosphere.

I gave you the link, read the whole thing.

Well, I am off for 10 days on vacation. Going where there are no COMPUTERS!!!!!

So everyone in the US, have a nice Thanksgiving. Be back later.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


hope your not flying



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I think that the places that would most likely be threatened are low level land areas and places in the south where temperatures are already high. If global warming does exists with catastrophic effects then it might be either our fault, or the natural dip in our harmonic model of the population.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 

Writing thousands of pages on bullcrap still doesn't change the fact that it's bullcrap.
I'm freezing my anus off here in NY. Just like I do every year, just like I have every year. In fact, I'd say it's colder this year. There was a delay in it's coming, but still, it's freezing. I want this supposed warming in NY right now.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join