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.

 

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
You know, I am really getting tired of the argument as to who is causing global warming. Humans or Uncontrollable climate shift.

I've said it many times, it doesn't matter one damn bit who caused it... we absolutely, beyond a doubt, have to do something to curve the temperature. Regardless of who caused it, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of species could become extinct pretty soon. Not to mention the geo-political nightmare that will erupt from simple issues like resource distribution.

We humans call ourselves the masters of our domain. Nature has done it's best so far to correct our screw-ups... well nature is about to make one of it's own... I feel it's our duty as a part of this planet to try to keep it in some form of working order.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I don't believe in global warming, but , for those who do, why don't you just start planting tree's? I think that would be cheaper than paying a carbon tax for no reason. And if you truly believe in global warming what actions have you taken to help prevent further damage to our mother earth?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Thanks! Nicely written.

It's about time someone started talking sense instead of accepting Nobel prizes and setting up carbon credit trading firms.

I will never believe that CO2 is the culprit in Climate Change. The past several hundred million years of this planets' existence show radical and frequent (in geological terms) changes in weather patterns.

The sun also has to bear some responsibilty for all this. Humans just aren't that important in the grand design. Sure we need to reduce pollution, consumption, and our numbers, but that's all that we can really do.

Al Gore: blow it out your gas!


[edit on 10-12-2007 by Cynic]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Anyone want to address the point I raised earlier, or are we happy to take everything at face value and accept that Gore is a chubby guy...

---------------------------

But, conclusion 2 in their discussion appears to be incorrect - at an error of .1'C (which is the difference between RSS and UAH and they use as 'structural uncertainty'), RSS is consistent with the models, they suggest not.

That is:

RSS (T2lt) = .144 +/- .1; models = .214 +/- .04

RSS (T2) = .133 +/- .1; models = .228 +/- .05

Using the magic of mathematics, they are within the range of each other, no?

-------------------------

Some of the conclusions of the actual study appear to be questionable. The make definitions of uncertainty, but then they must either ignore this, or do a 'bait and switch' and use a different value to make such a claim.

The models fit with the RSS data, but don't with the UAH data (which has always had issues).

Just to make it clearer. At their uncertainty of .1'C for the satellite data, then

For the lower troposphere (T2lt):

RSS = .044 to .244; models = .174 to .254

for mid troposphere:

RSS = .033 to .233; models = .178 to .278

There is a decent overlap. So, this data is consistent at this level of uncertainty (error). The authors say otherwise.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 

Why does your govt. have to tell you the truth? Think they know?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pc is here
Why does your govt. have to tell you the truth? Think they know?


Who knows, but the US government certainly know how to mislead the public:


The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.


oversight.house.gov...



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Here check this out!
ATS THREAD GLOBAL COOLING

And who lived in Antarctica 800,000 years ago? Let them go take a sample in Iraq, or Iran oh wait there is no ice to take samples of and confirm their details, therefore that is not proof.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Equinox99]


Huh? Sorry?? What does it matter 'who' lived in the Artic or Antartic 800,00 years ago? What does that have anything to do with anything??

It's simple science that any fool can understand - well, hopefully.

Every year for 800,000 years it snows....the contents of each winters' atmospheric contents are captured and preserved in that snow....the snow is slowly compacted year by year until it becomes ice....the ice is drilled out by scientists...the scientists analyze the chemical contents of the ice to discover what global temperatures and atmosheric CO2 levels were for that given year..... scientists thereby figure out that CO2 levels are at their highest in 800,00 years.

You have a problem understanding this?? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

J.

How warm did it get after each ice age, what were the temps?
Can they tell me what the temperatures were thousands of years ago? Can their ice cores tell me what the temps were? I think not!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Errm, yeah, they can give an insight into temperatures and CO2 levels...

linky



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by pc is here
Why does your govt. have to tell you the truth? Think they know?


Who knows, but the US government certainly know how to mislead the public:


The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.


oversight.house.gov...



sure bush has misled the public before and they will do so again, but so has the u.n

i wasn't aware bush was in charge of this study


also i don't want to believe this study i am a enviornmentalist and the battle to get people to care about the enviornment is too big a battle in my mind (and important) to win without global warming on my side



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cpdaman
i wasn't aware bush was in charge of this study


I don't think I said that was the case, he was in charge of gagging scientists.


also i don't want to believe this study i am a enviornmentalist and the battle to get people to care about the enviornment is too big a battle in my mind (and important) to win without global warming on my side


Nice to hear that...



I guess you'll be really happy to see that the conclusions of the study appear to be not be supported by their own data. That's a bigger reason to not 'believe' the study.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Burginthorn
 


Not going to laugh you out of any thread just because you invoke religion. More power to ya.

Just will let ya know, science is science...... Even if its junk science. I really try to delineate between the two. As weather is cyclical I will tend to steer away from the influence of God on the weather for now.

Maybe some more postings or a thread maybe with some evidence....and I could be persuaded. If the GW Theory is ever actually proved and the science becomes accepted I will even be inclined to go that way also (heaven forbid). But until, science can explain every aspect of climate change and can accurately predict what they call global warming.....I will tend to believe it is still earth generated and cyclical in nature.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Although global warming is real and is happening as we speak. Some causes of global warming are greatly exaggerated more than others. The first thing that I can think of is Milankovitch cycles, disprove them. Also, nobody brought up the fact that ~2k nuclear tests have been conducted all around the world by no other than our loving and caring government. Nuclear explosions cause the surrounding air to heat up to temperatures with unimaginable magnitudes in a fraction of a second:



The dominant effects of a nuclear weapon (the blast and thermal radiation) are the same physical damage mechanisms as conventional explosives, but the energy produced by a nuclear explosive is millions of times more per gram and the temperatures reached are in the tens of megakelvins.

en.wikipedia.org...

now i know wiki isn't a very credible source, but its something clear that nuclear explosions produce large amounts of energy.

I've seen the government and companies already starting to sell the smart cars and try to spread awareness about global warming, good, but no factories were closed where i liv e and the government announced that it can't reduce the emissions. I'd rather pay that extra dollar on hair jell than breath in all the nice stuff
. Also, in the city where I live, they're still using chlorine to treat waste water, chlorine is much more destructive than co2:
Ozone depletion. UV-radiation is much more harmfull and we have UV warnings here all the time
and the loving government did jack schist about it.

Since CO2 can be taken in by plants and turned into the very essential O2 why not plant more forests and stop chopping down the large trees? oh wait! Honda doesn't get money from this nvm.

Y2K bug

this is all my opinion of course



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Well, to put it to scale if I remember correctly, and I think now that I do:

If the Sun was a basketball size, then the Earth would be 1/10 of an inch in diameter 10 feet away. If Pluto could be seen, it would then at that scale be 40 feet away from the basketball Sun.

From what I have just glanced at over the Internet, yes the Sun does play a role in the weather with the ultra-violet and infrared regions and the magnetic fields and perhaps somewhat if you have the opinion it is like an electric field between the Earth and the Sun, as well as all Planet.

However, the Sun would not be enough to cause what is going on with Global Warming. One can look up the Sun's Activity for the day as well as find weblinks to sites that include data from what they consider, from Stanford University to Goddard Space Flight Center and Centers for the collection of data about the Sun and all things about the opinions and including Global Warming.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

It would be mentioned at one weblink that the Sun would only cause 25% of the changes in the weather, and that Global Warming is the other part of the effect upon the weather system of the Earth.

So although I do not like it, if more people drove less miles and did some thinking about how it affects everyone on this Planet, then that would help, but at the same time, like in the '70's when gas was rationed under Pres. Jimmy Carter, I think they stated that they would not do that again if a shortage of gasoline occurred in the future. (I guess they would raise up the price of gasoline.)

So much for equality of the people, but then do they really know the computer?

I still am of the opinion that both political parties of the USA make some less than stellar decisions, and that all the fussing and retardedness of standing on the steps of the Congressional Building when they pray every morning before entering really does not get both political parties together when they convene inside the building.

Now, one political party would leave it to the people, and again, I guess the people are not handling like they should, but then the other political party would make you pay more taxes for about anything they can think up as another tax.

To me it all seems like a lack of communication and again the competitiveness and empty-headedness of people in the USA. This will affect me again in the future, and I guess that some people really will not care at all, as long as they can afford the gasoline they put into his/her/spacealien's vehicle. Before back in the '70's gas-guzzeling cars became Planter's for Flowers during that Flower Movement Era talked about that went before in the '60's, but now, each person will be on his/her own as regards whether you can afford it or not.

How about an enclosed golf cart to go around in?


Flower Power Era Movement.
Please put flowers on our graves.


[edit on 12/11/2007 by AmoebaSized]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
If the Earth is considered a closed system (which it is not) then I'd have to agree that CO2 emissions have no effect on the surrounding environment, unfortunately they do and I'd like to see it cleaned up so that I can breath better. Or are we going to rely on the evolution of more efficient lungs that readily adapt to CO2? I mean that in all seriousness: natural selection.
\


Funny you should mention that..

I movrd out into the country & the Clean Fresh air about 5 years ago.

Ever since the 1st day I got here, I have had troubly breathing..lol

And I always feel better when I go into the City & breath those sweet, sweet CO2 Fumes...


[edit on 12/11/2007 by Ironclad]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I could have sworn for a second there that Jimbo99 was David de Rothschild
.(from interview with Alex Jones)

Now... why would the global elite be pushing for more 'global warming' fear?...

TAX ON HUMAN LIFE




De-Facto One Child Policy Urged in Australia

COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.


Creeping eugenics and population control? ...but that would never happen..our governments love us.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by Unplugged]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Hi all, i'm new to ATS.
I am not sure if this was mentioned earlier in the thread as I began to lose interest when the mud slinging began but I saw a programme on this subject on TV last year and one of the points highlighted was that it isn't actually Co2 that causes the temperature to rise but in fact the other way around.
From what I understand the pattern in the rise of temperature and in Co2 are the same, only difference is that the rise in Co2 is 80 years behind the rise in temperature.
Can't for the life of me remember the name of the programme but has anybody else heard of this theory?
If it has already been mentioned I apologise.
Despite whether or not this is correct we as a race have a hell of a lot to answer for with regards to polution and destruction of the planet, it isn't just about global warming.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Ah, this is damning news! Not because it disproves humans as the cause of global warming. I couldn't care less about that, and I've had my suspicions about it anyway.

No, it's damning news because the promise of global warming (whether true or false) had started to make people care about what they do with their waste, how much they drive etc. The further that information like this spreads, the less inclined people are going to be to live harmoniously with nature. We'll be back to spewing as much waste and pollution as we can before we know it.

In short, global warming isn't the only negative effect of our inability to live 'green'. Landfill, inner-city smog, water-contimination and harmful plastic packaging are enough of a reason to start living green on their own - but for most people they are too 'trivial' to make any changes to the way they live.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Logan
I don't believe in global warming, but , for those who do, why don't you just start planting tree's? I think that would be cheaper than paying a carbon tax for no reason. And if you truly believe in global warming what actions have you taken to help prevent further damage to our mother earth?

I thought this site had a label "deny ignorance"...hang on.....yep it's still there!

Planting trees is a good thing in the long term but in the short term would ironically make the CO2 situation worse! What we really need to do is to stop chopping down mature trees. Young trees are net CO2 contributors, mature tress are net CO2 absorbers, dead trees are net CO2 contributors.

What do humans do? We chop down mature trees and plant lots of new ones and declare look at us aren't we clever and good!

This GW argument is dead, unfortunately. The US skeptics have won the day and I just hope they are all partying in New York 20 years from now
when the Greenland ice sheets slide into the sea. I did hope we would see sense but that is clearly not happening. China is a huge problem that will make what has happened so far look like a picnic (NB we have 10 years of worsening climate even if humans became extinct tomorrow!). Without the west (especially the US) convincingly leading the way then we haven't a hope in hell of persuading China to clean up its act.

In my opinion, looking at how the worldwide ice cover is changing, weather patterns here in Europe and Asia we are past that point of no return (note the 10 year lag yet to come!). This does not mean I will stop doing "my bit". I will do all I can to ensure a secure future for my children.

Give yourselves a pat on the back skeptics, ignorance is bliss isn't it.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
All this "I don't believe in Global warming b******t " is a bit like a guy on a boat with a leak and his feet are submerged in water and he keeps saying repeatedly "I don't believe the boat is sinking" This is what you sound like.
Listen, we're all in the one boat, there is a lot of research telling us that we're 'contributing' to global warming, yes with our SUV's and or cattle and our industrial emissions, com on they can't be helping now can they, don't be so bloody evasive. We're NOT the only cause, grow up please, you sound like children arguing over who should have the purple sweets.
So that being the case, with sea levels rising more every year, a pretty much proven certainty, the nuclear option in NOT a runner, in that respect we're all ready in trouble as almost all our nuclear facilities are costal a 2 metre sea level rise would be catastrophic there would be multiple Chernobyl's major major crap. Possibly a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred at any given time. Remember these facilities are OLD and were NOT built with major sea level rises in mind, Fact, many will be undermined!!
I don't think there is much point in anyone trying to convince anyone or even themselves that changes are NOT afoot; they are, whether we are the cause or not, they're coming and sticking your head under your arm and saying you don't 'believe in global warming' is fairly pathetic and selfish imo. If you've got kid's you have a responsibility to them to do your utmost to safeguard their future by your actions in the present. Not believing reality is foolhardy, even for those who are truly foolish.





[edit on 11-12-2007 by willywagga]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Okay, let's say that this study is 100% accurate. Isn't that a bad thing? Wouldn't that mean that the planet is heating up and there isn't anything we can do to stop and we're and we're all screwed?

But on the bright side, I don't have to feel quite so guilty about driving 800 miles per in my rickety old junker that hasn't been tuned up in over a decade..


The bottomline is that the Earth is getting warmer and it's having a negative effect on the environment. Who gives a $#!+ what's causing it? At least if CO2 is the culprit, there are steps we can take to slow down or possibly stop the effect by reducing emissions. Fairly simple if everyone helps out. But if this report is completely accurate, I seriously doubt it is but that's not the point, the global scientific community has entirely set of problems to figure out. So I don't see what all of you global warming "haters" are celebrating here...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join