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: 11
31
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   
They tell us one thing then tell us another. Who's to say it's not disinformation anyway? WTF, let's drive hybrids just in case.



Dae

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, the point is that the earth is much closer. If the changes on pluto were due to changes is solar activity, we would sort of notice it.

Put your hand 60 inches from a light bulb. That's pluto.

Put your hand 2 inches from the light bulb. That's the earth.


And


It's must be magical cosmic rays or something, heh.


Eek melatonin, come on! Youre a clever one and these statements about the sun are a tad wrong. Its only magical cosmic rays if you dont understand whats going on.

First off, do you think that heat travels through space and heats up our planet? Heat on our planet is generated by electromagnetic energy sent from the sun (x-rays, UV etc.), it turns to heat when it hits the atmosphere (heating some sections and not others) and warms the breathable air when it hits the ground. The sun doesnt passively heat up planets, the sun produces energy which interacts with a planets atmosphere and magnetic field.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

If the Earth were a ball of rock with no atmosphere, a simple calculation that equates the solar energy absorbed by the Earth to the heat emitted by the Earth would predict the global average Earth temperature to be 0 degrees Fahrenheit, or 255 Kelvin-very cold, and not the Earth as we know it (this scenario assumes that an average rock reflects 30 percent of all light that hits it).


So no atmosphere = freezing planet despite the distance from the sun.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dae
Eek melatonin, come on! Youre a clever one and these statements about the sun are a tad wrong. Its only magical cosmic rays if you dont understand whats going on.


Eh? I wasn't being deadly serious, just playing on the tendency for certain people to accept a very tentative hypothesis that needs lots more work which essentially has data that shows no trend (i.e. cosmic rays) and so will be unlikely offer a real explanation for current warming, but refuse to accept a very simple theory based on well-supported physics -anything but GHGs.

That had nothing to do with the other explanation of solar radiation and distance.


First off, do you think that heat travels through space and heats up our planet? Heat on our planet is generated by electromagnetic energy sent from the sun (x-rays, UV etc.), it turns to heat when it hits the atmosphere (heating some sections and not others) and warms the breathable air when it hits the ground. The sun doesnt passively heat up planets, the sun produces energy which interacts with a planets atmosphere and magnetic field.


What I said was simple. Planets further away are less affected by solar radiation than those closer to the sun. No need for whatever you are attempting to do. An atmosphere is able to better hold this radiation.

If solar radiation variation (and that is what has essentially been said) could account for 2'C increases at a distance of pluto, it would offer a little bit more here. True, no? The radiation still has to travel through space, undergoing diffusion etc, reducing the intensity of impinging energy as it goes.

Determined by the inverse square law, no?

Intensity of radiation = l/d^2

The further away, the less intense radiation. So, for an increase of 2'C at 39AU, it would be a tad more intense at 1AU.

BE: OK, found what I wanted.

At 1AU, 1367wm-2 radiation. Therefore, at 39AU:

Intensity = 1367/39^2

=.899 Wm-2

So, we have 1367 wm-2 vrs .898wm-2. To produce just an extra 1wm-2 at 39AU, we might notice.

l = 1.899wm-2 x 39^2

= 2888.4 wm-2

Current predictions show that an extra 4wm-2 on earth would produce about 2-4'C warming (i.e. same as 2x CO2). So, an extra 1500wm-2 might be noticeable. Even increasing pluto to 1wm-2 (adding .11wm-2) would give an extra 100wm-2 here.


So no atmosphere = freezing planet despite the distance from the sun.


Yes, I know, this is generally the case all being equal (as mercury is pretty hot).

Did I say otherwise? Both pluto and the earth have some sort of an atmosphere, so I can't see the point of this. That's why we can measure its temperature through changes in atmospheric pressure (pV = nRT).

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmoebaSized


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.



But one must also remember that, that 25% effect has a greater long term effect. Once the solar rays and radiation reach the Earth and change the current temperature, either up or down 1 degree (sorry I still fail to see how 1 degree is significant), that change can also effect the atmosphere. Once the atmosphere is effected, that change can continually cause changes in the climate and hence the weather. The change in weather can lead to increases or decreases in the concentration of the atmosphere, then leading to other NATURALLY occuring events, like El Nino or La Nina. These events can further change weather patterns, and have in the past. In Fact, scientists can pretty much determine withing days of an El Nino event taking place, what the weather paterns will be over the next 2 years around the world.

So, that 25% impact has a much larger EFFECT then your leading on to. It really does not give an excuse or a reason as to why GW is apparently taking place, but I think reinforces the idea of cycles. Sun spot cycles, solar radiational heating and cool, El nino and la nina, droughts, wet periods. AL CYCLES. They have been going on for year. El Nino and La Nina effects were first talked about in the 1800's. Once scientists grabbed onto the concepts, they tried to name the events. Local fisherman in South America had already been aware of suh events due to the impact of fishing in the areas and for years had already been calling them by name. Scientists embraced the name and hence we have el nino and la nina today.

If we all agreed to just admit, that Global warming does not exist.....and then we all agreed to combat pollution instead I would be all for this whole thing. But grabbing onto global warming to use as a fear tactic is just wrong.

Stop the conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
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.



Just for your information, nxt to volcanos, the #2 reason for increased C02 levels is forest fires. So not chopping down mature trees is not the right answer either, unless your an environmentalist thats puts nature ahead of human life. Thinning mature forests is the correct thing to do. This could properly be done by an environmentalist (one who is not biased), a conservatist, an urban planner and such. Sometimes we can't see the trees through the forest. Becareful keeping old trees alive and clean out under brush. it will go a long way in preventing forest fires from turning into huge uincontrollable disasters. Nothing will stop forest fires, but we can atleast prevent the from becoming deadly.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by willywagga
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.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by willywagga]


You really need to stop watching Algores movie and using that as real information. There is no proof if 2 meters of sea rising now, in the future or whenever. There were so many inaccuracies in that movie it would take a new thread to go over each one properly.

I think they have lowered the sea level rise to something like 3 cm now. So please don't come on hear and down play someone else's opinion without giving some facts to back up yours.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
Many scientific departments are desperate for funding today. Some scientists of littlle repute are more than willing to warmly accept funding from dubious sources. Those sources are more often than not oil companies. They come with blank cheques in hand and pre-drawn conclusions for these 'scientists'.

Needless to say, oil industry PR people make damn sure these 'scientific papers' are published and WELL publicised - after all, that's the whole point in the first place.

This sort of behaviour is considered crass & non-scientific by more legitimate and reputable scientists - but they KNOW it goes on.


You cannot dispute the science, so you attack the messangers. Brilliant.

Your claim makes little to no sense. You say that departments are desperate for funding, and more often than not it's the evil oil companies that come along to provide that funding to unscrupulous scientists. However, if you look at the literature, it is the pro-Global-Warming papers that are the norm, not the anti-Global Warming. If these scientists are so desperate for funding, why is it that there are more pro-Global Warming papers if the oil companies are most often providing funding?

If departments are desperate for funding, it stands to reckon the unscrupulous street works both ways? Or do you consider the scientists pushing the conclusions you want to be above that, simply because they agree with you? Reid Bryson, an atmospheric scentist, said "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide."

During the 1990s, Enron was the darling of the environmental movement. It was held up as the example as a responsible corporate entity. It had one of the largest green-technology divisions among American companies. As a previous poster mentioned, it worked hand-in-hand with the Clinton Administration to push Kyoto. But when it went out of business, the green-technology division was purchased by GE. GE now spends more of lobbyists for it's green-technologies on Capitol Hill than do all the major oil-companies combined. GE is proud to fund Global-Warming research, and is actively pushing for carbon-credits legislation. When this legislation is passed, GE stands to reap billions upon billions.

Seems like there is a lot of money flowing around this issue, for unscrupulous reasons, doesn't it? No one has their hands clean when it comes to the funding issue.

I would suggest instead of making ad hominem attacks against scientists, for which you have absolutely no evidence for other than supposed hearsay and conjecture who is biased and certainly repeating the same without any proof, you instead attempt to debate the science. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the small mind.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dae

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, the point is that the earth is much closer. If the changes on pluto were due to changes is solar activity, we would sort of notice it.

Put your hand 60 inches from a light bulb. That's pluto.

Put your hand 2 inches from the light bulb. That's the earth.


And


It's must be magical cosmic rays or something, heh.


Eek melatonin, come on! Youre a clever one and these statements about the sun are a tad wrong. Its only magical cosmic rays if you dont understand whats going on.

First off, do you think that heat travels through space and heats up our planet? Heat on our planet is generated by electromagnetic energy sent from the sun (x-rays, UV etc.), it turns to heat when it hits the atmosphere (heating some sections and not others) and warms the breathable air when it hits the ground. The sun doesnt passively heat up planets, the sun produces energy which interacts with a planets atmosphere and magnetic field.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

If the Earth were a ball of rock with no atmosphere, a simple calculation that equates the solar energy absorbed by the Earth to the heat emitted by the Earth would predict the global average Earth temperature to be 0 degrees Fahrenheit, or 255 Kelvin-very cold, and not the Earth as we know it (this scenario assumes that an average rock reflects 30 percent of all light that hits it).


So no atmosphere = freezing planet despite the distance from the sun.


Also Melatonin.......once the electromagnetic energy arrives hears and turns to heat a few things can happen. First it can hit the earth and bounce back into space or it stay arond the earth warm it up. Ya see, as much as you dislike CO2, it is necessary. Without it, our planet would freeze. Take Mercury for example....Reaches 500 degrees in the day time, and goes to 400 below zero at night. Why? Its right next to the sun. Well, the atmosphere of Mercury was burned off millions of years ago, so when the suns rays hit the planet it is turned in to high levels of heat, but as the planet spins and day turns to night, NO SUN, no atmosphere....means cold cold temperatures.

let me pose somthing to you. The greenhouse effeect is one of the main reasons for life on this planet and we are trying to mess with it. Everyone keeps saying thats its our responsibility to save the planet. What if the planet really does not need saving? What if the greenhouse effect works in conjunction with the hole in the ozone layer? have you ever thought about that? The greenhouse effect heats the planet to the right temperature and the hole in the ozone layer lets just enough heat out to keep the earth in balance. Since the 1970's we have been taking steps to control the size of the hole in the ozone layer. HMMMM....Since the 1970's we have been concerned about the global warming. Are you beginning to see a patter, uh oh, another cycle. Maybe if we left the hole in the ozone layer (something that has been around since the birth of the planet), to itself...maybe the global warming story would go away? I know its just a theory, but so is global warming.

OK, let the shots begin....fire away at "MY" new theory!!!!!!! Maybe I should start a post about that???????



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
let me pose somthing to you. The greenhouse effeect is one of the main reasons for life on this planet and we are trying to mess with it. Everyone keeps saying thats its our responsibility to save the planet.


I don't think the planet needs saving.

I'm more worried about society and the effect we are having on climate. I think the planet will be around in 5 million years.


Since the 1970's we have been taking steps to control the size of the hole in the ozone layer. HMMMM....Since the 1970's we have been concerned about the global warming. Are you beginning to see a patter, uh oh, another cycle. Maybe if we left the hole in the ozone layer (something that has been around since the birth of the planet), to itself...maybe the global warming story would go away? I know its just a theory, but so is global warming.


Heh, I reckon it would be best to not give up the day-job.

What you stated is not a theory. That's a hypothesis. Seeing you are keen on playing at being a scientist, go get a lab-coat and test the hypothesis. When you eventually find lots of evidence supporting your hypothesis, it might just make it to theory status.


OK, let the shots begin....fire away at "MY" new theory!!!!!!! Maybe I should start a post about that???????


I don't need to. You need to get out your armchair and do the science, then you might have a theory.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


OK, well since we are exiting an active period of solar activity, lets wait 15 years and see whether it cools over the coming slow activity. Give me some time and I will get ya the data.

For now, I was only putting something out there. Ya did not have to be so mean about. Never pretended to be a scientist, maybe a realist, but never a scientist.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
OK, well since we are exiting an active period of solar activity, lets wait 15 years and see whether it cools over the coming slow activity. Give me some time and I will get ya the data.


It's already been pretty constant for decades.


For now, I was only putting something out there. Ya did not have to be so mean about. Never pretended to be a scientist, maybe a realist, but never a scientist.


That's cool. Nothing wrong with that. But you have been throwing the 'Itz onlee a feery!!!oneoneone!!!' rubbish about a bit over the last couple of days.

A theory is top stuff in science. It's not just an educated guess or hunch, that would be a hypothesis. Theories are internally consistent, logical explanations supported by evidence.

I like to think of myself as bittersweet. I'm a sweetie who can be mean to be kind when it's called for, I generally try to do this through humour. It works on undergrads anyway...



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


OK fine its a hypothesis. Got to start somewhere. Global Warming was a hypothesis one time too. So was evolution.

What do you think of the hypothesis? If given 15 years to collect data, I guess if I had time I could back test it, is it something you could find feasible?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

A theory is top stuff in science. It's not just an educated guess or hunch, that would be a hypothesis. Theories are internally consistent, logical explanations supported by evidence.



Whats so illogical about it? I think its a pretty interesting thought. Well, like you said I am not a scientist (didn't want to be fined for another 1 liner)



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


QUOTE:
''I don't need to. You need to get out your armchair and do the science, then you might have a theory.''

Well said.

J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:19 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?


Global warming isn't a 'belief'. 'God' is a belief. Global warming is science. Plain & simple.

Ever hear of recycling? Buying local produce? Using low-power appliances? Hybrid cars? Financially supporting your local enviromental organisation?

The list goes on...

.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynic
 



Again: the science does NOT indicate anything you have mentioned is responsible. Why dispute what the world's most brilliant minds have already accertained is occurring?

J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:27 AM
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...



And that's the simple truth folks. You are being fed mis-information in order to mislead you. Looking for conspiracies? Well - this is probably the biggest one in a century... The government in manipulating you - wether you want to admit it or not.

J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by UScitizen
 


Errmmm...actually, I believe they can. Try searching for 'ice cores'.

J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Why dispute what the world's most brilliant minds have already accertained is occurring?



maybe it's because of this effort.

Personally, I'm glad the name was changed from 'Global Warming' to Climate Change', though, mainly because the effects are different depending on which part of the globe you are observing and which natural cycles are coming into play at the present.

I'm particularly concerned for the drought situation in the southern states, even though Oklahoma is suffering massive power outages from an ice storm presently.

Climate Change can mean an overall increase in severe weather in all parts of the globe..



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
OK fine its a hypothesis. Got to start somewhere. Global Warming was a hypothesis one time too. So was evolution.


True.


What do you think of the hypothesis? If given 15 years to collect data, I guess if I had time I could back test it, is it something you could find feasible?


Ok, you wanta my opinion...


What if the greenhouse effect works in conjunction with the hole in the ozone layer? have you ever thought about that? The greenhouse effect heats the planet to the right temperature and the hole in the ozone layer lets just enough heat out to keep the earth in balance. Since the 1970's we have been taking steps to control the size of the hole in the ozone layer.


I don't see how this makes sense. The ozone layer is in the stratosphere, it basically contains ozone, which actually acts to cool and warm the stratosphere - even though it a GHG. This is similar to what other GHGs do at this level of the atmosphere, increase GHGs in the strato increase cooling. This cooling actually will result in more ozone depletion.

I don't see how reducing the ozone layer would actually reduce global warming to a great extent. The ozone hole is pretty much at the top of the world, so it has little effect on the vast majority of the climate around the world. The greenhouse effect is generally a result of gases in the troposphere. However, as ozone is a GHG, it helps to absorb some radiation before it reaches the earth, reducing it will actually allow more long-wave radiation to reach the earth causing heating of the troposphere, but the cooler strato then emits less radiation downwards. So, overall, ozone reduction does cool, but only minimally. So, the ozone depletion doesn't really let heat out in any significant way, it is more a case of allowing UV rays in (as O3 absorbs UV very well).

linky

So, we are swamping any cooling that ozone depletion would cause with the effect from GHGs (i.e., 10x GHG warming to ozone cooling) . This stuff has already been assessed.

The ozone hole has changed little, it will take a few decades for recovery to happen due to reduction of human-sourced halogens.

ABE: meant to add, the most effective way we could reduce GHG warming by emitting stuff, is by the action of sulphate aerosols - not ideal though as it has negative effects as well.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]




top topics



 
31
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join