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.

 

US: thanks for destroying our world!

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
If we are being gleaned from a massive galactic civilization, we might be demonstrating our ignorance with our nationalistic, race or culture-based and patriotic behavior, recognizing our "differences" in stead of recognizing the bigger picture of what we all have in common and coming together for that. That, being our Earth, it's diversity of life, it's beauty and sacred nature.




Please tell me you are not spreading aliens into a topic about climate change?




posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
First of all, The IPCC report states that the "Global" temperature change was 0.6 degrees Celsius +/- 0.2 degrees. Meaning that the change could be as great as 0.8 or as little as 0.4. I personally believe that this being hyped science and almost a religious movement that the 0.4 is more likely. With that said, we do have a responsibility to protect our planet. It is our God given responsibility. One problem with many of the comments I have read is there is no middle ground. It seems to be an either for or against issue. This makes me all the more skeptical of its being a real issue. There are respected scientists on both sides of this issue. Most agree that global warming is a real phenomena. The issue is whether it is man made or not. I think we ought to look at history for answers to where we are and what the real dangers are or are not. First of all, what is climate change, and has this type of change occurred before? Has the CO2 levels ever been this high before, and does CO2 cause warming or is it a sign of warming? Does the fact that all the planets in the solar system experienced the same or greater warming mean anything? To answer these questions we have science. First, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past as have global temperatures. this has happened as little as 2000 years ago. 2000 years may seem like a long time to us, but when you look at the Earths history that is a short moment. Second, CO2 as stated by John Coleman one of the most respected meteorologist of all time states it is a trace gas and a sign of change, not the cause of change. Science trumps hype. Third, as just stated in a detailed peer reviewed piece on global weather change, they have determined that the majority of the climate models used over the last twenty years have been inaccurate due to their failure to include all factors into the equations in the tables. Finally, what is wrong with global warming? Do we really want what happened when their was major cooling? You may have heard of this time, it was referred to as the dark ages. Because of global cooling crops died and people starved. People in a weak condition succumbed to the great Plague. Is this what we want? NO! bring on global warming, I am freezing right now!

PS. to who ever posted that 0.6 is 2 degrees difference in Fahrenheit, you are all wet. it is 1.08 degrees difference in Fahrenheit. How can I trust your science when it is completely wrong?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
First of all, I never suggested killing billions of people because I don't think global warming is occuring but maybe it's something you should think about since you do. The average person puts out more CO2 than a car does and don't plants and tree absorb CO2. If we were to get rid of all cars, big oil, big business and capitalism like you want, wouldn't that make the Earth cooler and why would you want that. We would completely destroy our way of life and go back to the days of early settlers. And that was a good time wasn't it? Wouldn't certain arears of the Earth benifit from a warmer climate and a longer growing season where people rely on crops for their survival. You take it for granted. You can hop in your car with plenty of gas thanks to big oil where a gallon of gas is cheaper than a gallon of milk and drive yourself silly in a free society where other people sacrifice for your freedom and you still bitch about how bad things are and were all going to die if Al Gore doesn't get his way. Will then what do you purpose to do! Do you want us to all stop driving so there are no products on the selves and can't get to work eachday. And you talk about alternative fuel so what are they? We don't want windmills because god forbid a bird might fly into one. Solar is useless unless the Sun is out. We can't have nuclear or oil or coal. Ethonol is driving up the cost of everything. So I want to know what your plans are to reduce CO2 and at what cost to the American taxpayers.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I think what you said is beautifully stated and I'm glad you pointed out the difference between .6 degrees C to F. There is absolutely no global warming that can't be explained by solar activity or gamma ray burst from exploding stars. We have more to fear from an astriod than we do from what naturally occurs on Earth that we can't control. I want the U.N out of this debate and I want them out of this country. They should have been kicked out after the oil for food scandal. This is nothing more than a global tax that will hurt business and jobs so stay the hell out of our affairs and get the hell out of this country. Go to France where you can bash the hell out of this country and if it wasn't for us you wouldn't be around you ungreatful pigs.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SanDiegoCA
First, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past as have global temperatures. this has happened as little as 2000 years ago. 2000 years may seem like a long time to us, but when you look at the Earths history that is a short moment.


CO2 levels don't appear to have been this high for at least 650,000 years.


Second, CO2 as stated by John Coleman one of the most respected meteorologist of all time states it is a trace gas and a sign of change, not the cause of change.


CO2 is a GHG, and as a GHG will cause change. The PETM is a good example of a predominately GHG-mediated climate change.


Third, as just stated in a detailed peer reviewed piece on global weather change, they have determined that the majority of the climate models used over the last twenty years have been inaccurate due to their failure to include all factors into the equations in the tables.


And that's why Hansen's model from 1988 is still showing great predictive ability. However, admittedly, we don't expect models to be perfect, just good enough to give an insight into future scenarios.


Finally, what is wrong with global warming? Do we really want what happened when their was major cooling? You may have heard of this time, it was referred to as the dark ages. Because of global cooling crops died and people starved. People in a weak condition succumbed to the great Plague. Is this what we want? NO! bring on global warming, I am freezing right now!


I'm sure those who might suffer drought (e.g., africa) and floods (e.g., bangladesh) won't be so chuffed.


How can I trust your science when it is completely wrong?


Aye, but we can all make mistakes with maths, I guess. Indeed, we can also be wrong about many things, some even might suggest that CO2 levels were greater than now, 2000 years ago...



[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a naturally occurring gas that PLANTS BREATHE!! Carbon Dioxide is not responsible for global warming, it is the other way around. Global warming causes the Carbon Dioxide that is dissolved in our oceans to come out of solution.

What happens when you let a cold soda sit out and get warm? It gets flat because all the Carbon Dioxide comes out of solution. This is 8th grade chemistry.

Convincing the world that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant is one of the biggest hoaxes of our time. The fact that so many people believe this is a testament to how modern media has brainwashed the average person. It is all in preparation for the Carbon Tax that is being proposed by people such as Al Gore.

This is a SCAM, they are mentally preparing you for a tax on the AIR YOU BREATHE!!!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrZERO
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a naturally occurring gas that PLANTS BREATHE!! Carbon Dioxide is not responsible for global warming, it is the other way around. Global warming causes the Carbon Dioxide that is dissolved in our oceans to come out of solution.

What happens when you let a cold soda sit out and get warm? It gets flat because all the Carbon Dioxide comes out of solution. This is 8th grade chemistry.

Convincing the world that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant is one of the biggest hoaxes of our time. The fact that so many people believe this is a testament to how modern media has brainwashed the average person. It is all in preparation for the Carbon Tax that is being proposed by people such as Al Gore.

This is a SCAM, they are mentally preparing you for a tax on the AIR YOU BREATHE!!!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!


Excellent post and everything stated are great points!

Finally another poster here with some brains and who can think for themselves.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I'll be glad when the aliens show up in 2012 and put all this
fear mongering to rest. The Earth has had ice ages in the past
and we are going to have them in the future.
Don't worry so much.
The truth will arrive Dec. 21, 2012.
Then, those dreadful words will come out of your mouth.
"I was wrong."



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
I'll be glad when the aliens show up in 2012 and put all this
fear mongering to rest. The Earth has had ice ages in the past
and we are going to have them in the future.
Don't worry so much.
The truth will arrive Dec. 21, 2012.
Then, those dreadful words will come out of your mouth.
"I was wrong."


Aren't you going to feel a little silly if/when nothing happens in 2012?
Really, don't get your hopes up because you might fall far into depression.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrZERO
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a naturally occurring gas that PLANTS BREATHE!! Carbon Dioxide is not responsible for global warming, it is the other way around. Global warming causes the Carbon Dioxide that is dissolved in our oceans to come out of solution.

What happens when you let a cold soda sit out and get warm? It gets flat because all the Carbon Dioxide comes out of solution. This is 8th grade chemistry.


Aye, but you might have missed the grades above that...

We know that CO2 is a GHG, we've known that since the mid 19th century. All you are doing is showing that gas solubility changes with temperature, and plants use CO2 in respiration, well done.

That doesn't negate the long-wave radiation absorbing properties of CO2.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by DrZERO
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a naturally occurring gas that PLANTS BREATHE!! Carbon Dioxide is not responsible for global warming, it is the other way around. Global warming causes the Carbon Dioxide that is dissolved in our oceans to come out of solution.

What happens when you let a cold soda sit out and get warm? It gets flat because all the Carbon Dioxide comes out of solution. This is 8th grade chemistry.


Aye, but you might have missed the grades above that...

We know that CO2 is a GHG, we've known that since the mid 19th century. All you are doing is showing that gas solubility changes with temperature, and plants use CO2 in respiration, well done.

That doesn't negate the long-wave radiation absorbing properties of CO2.


My point exactly, warmer temperatures equal more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

How can something that plant life on Earth uses for respiration be labeled a pollutant?

Thanks for backing me up Melotonin.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrZERO

That doesn't negate the long-wave radiation absorbing properties of CO2.


My point exactly, warmer temperatures equal more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way around.


When you have successfully completed the more advanced course in chemistry, the part about GHGs and 'long-wave absorption' might make more sense.


How can something that plant life on Earth uses for respiration be labeled a pollutant?


I guess we can label many things a pollutant if they can have negative effects on the environment. But, honestly, doesn't matter if we label it a pollutant or not, doesn't negate it's physical properties.


Thanks for backing me up Melotonin.


I like your optimistic outlook. When you've completed 9th grade chemistry, such things could happen.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


OK, just finished that advanced course, so answer me this. If these "green house gasses" are the cause of global warming, why haven't upper atmoshperic temperatures risen like you would expect in a green-house? Why is it that most of the elevated temperatures measured in the last 100 years are on the surface of the planet?


[edit on 16-12-2007 by DrZERO]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrZERO
reply to post by melatonin
 


OK, just finished that advanced course, so answer me this. If these "green house gasses" are the cause of global warming, why haven't upper atmoshperic temperatures risen like you would expect in a green-house? Why is it that most of the elevated temperatures measured in the last 100 years on the surface of planet?


Don't hold your breath to long as it might take a while for him to find the answer on google or wiki or the local GW propaganda site.


[edit on 15-12-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrZERO
OK, just finished that advanced course, so answer me this.


Great. So hopefully you'll understand that GHGs are capable of 'trapping' heat. Indeed, that's why they are called greenhouse gases. We've known that since the days of Arrhenius, Fourier, and Tyndell.



If these "green house gasses" are the cause of global warming, why haven't upper atmoshperic temperatures risen like you would expect in a green-house? Why is it that most of the elevated temperatures measured in the last 100 years on the surface of planet?


You'd have to be more specific. Do you mean stratosphere or higher levels of the troposphere (e.g., mid tropo)?


Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Don't hold your breath to long as it might take a while for him to find the answer on google or wiki or the local GW propaganda site.


Heh, even if that was the primary source for my info, which it isn't by the way, it would be a step ahead of your own research abilities.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Yes, I understand that greenhouse gasses trap heat, as in a greenhouse. In a greenhouse the trapped heat rises to the top and then heats the greenhouse from the top down. If this analogy is to be applied to the Earth, then you would expect the upper levels of the atmosphere to heat up before the surface temperatures, this is not the case. Can you please explain to us uneducated folk why that is?

As for which part of the upper-level atmosphere, you pick.


[edit on 15-12-2007 by DrZERO]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


It will be news to China and India that they are not major countries.

With over half the population of the world not following Kyoto, why is it so bad that the US doesn't?

Do a Google search for "Greenland Viking farming" and you will find that when the Earth was warmer (about 900-1200), Greenland was a major exporter of agricultural products.

We need more global warming!



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 

When will people stop generalizing other people? It's like the plague unfortunatly it will never go away. People get so upset with the "whole" that they forget there is individualism in every city, county, country... and they'd rather be upset with the "whole" cause it's easier that way.

From now on, personally, I wish the "whole world" would think of all the bad crap that "Americans" do, would generalize their focus towards the Government of the People as it's them that causes all your animosity and hatred towards the true, Americans!



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrZERO
Yes, I understand that greenhouse gasses trap heat, as in a green-house. In a greenhouse the trapped heat rises to the top and then heats the green-house from the top down. If this analogy it to be applied to the Earth, then you would expect the upper levels of the atmosphere to heat up before the surface temperatures, this is not the case. Can you please explain to us uneducated folk why that is?


OK. Just to complicate this stuff. It actually isn't really like a greenhouse, it's a bit of a misnomer. Greenhouses work by stopping convection. GHGs work a bit differently.

Solar radiation enters the atmosphere, some is absorbed on the way in, but much hits the ground/surface. At this point, it is full of short-wave energy (e.g., visible wavelengths). Over much of the earth, it is absorbed by the ground, and loses some of it energy (but snow and ice is a good reflecting surface). It is then emitted at a longer wavelength (infra-red).

This longer wavelength radiation then attempts to leave the earth. One way to see the effect of GHGs on longwave radiation is like this:

We have a football. We have a number of people. We randomly spread them in a room. At one end (ground), packets of longwave energy (the ball) is emitted. Each person is a GHG molecule. To get out of the troposphere it needs to make it to the opposite end of the room. The ball is passed along the floor, and people kick it in random directions.

With less people, it will make it out quicker. With lots more people it will bounce around for quite a while before making it out the other end.

It could be a bad analogy for you (it's also less than perfect), but see if it makes sense, it was sort of the way it was explained to me. Essentially what GHGs do is actually absorb packets of energy, which they then emit in random directions, the denser (higher concentration) the amount of GHG, the more the energy will be held in the troposphere (warming this area and also the surface), slowing it's path into space.

Of course, each GHG absorbs at different wavelengths, so it's a bit more complicated than that. But, after grade 9, one step at time would be the optimal approach.

.............................................

ABE:


As for which part of the upper-level atmosphere, you pick.


We'll do the stratosphere. Mainly because it is a fantastic verified prediction of GHG-induced warming, and should also make sense with the analogy I'm using above.

I hope your honest enough to work through this, as it's a bit of work on my side. But I do like to educate. You don't need to accept it, but at least you'll understand some of the science behind this stuff.



[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


So what you are saying is that the energy absorbed in the troposphere would warm that area of the atmosphere first, then the warming would spread to surrounding areas including the surface of the Earth?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join