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. Accellerated and Amplified.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
When faced with a scientific question, if you are presented with two answers that are both equally as proven as each other (and no other answers exist), then the obvious answer is actually a combination of both.

Is it not?

Then why is it that we continue to squabble over who caused Global Warming?

Was it Man? There's indisputable evidence to prove this.

Was it Nature? There's also indisputable evidence to prove this.

Clearly then, it is a combination of both.

It is my understanding that those who are intimidated by the pursuit of knowledge, seek a "whipping boy" rather than answers. They often look for someone to blame, when there is no-one to blame. They will exert themselves attacking each other, rather than to simply address the issue.


Let's look at the facts.
A natural heating cycle is expected, within the next couple of millennia. However, it is clearly here right now, ahead of schedule.
The toxins and waste we have released into our atmosphere is proven to cause damage to natural cycles, and heat the earth by amplifying the greenhouse effect.

I want you to go back and read that last paragraph once more.

Is it not obvious? Am I going insane here?
What we are facing is a NATURAL CYCLE, AMPLIFIED AND ACCELERATED, BY MAN.

Why are people still bickering over a binary choice? No one side is at fault... ALL sides are at fault.


Now. My next bit of aggravation.

Why is it, that when faced with an issue that MUST be fixed, do people prefer to 1: Find someone else to blame, and then 2: Do nothing to address the issue?

We need solutions! We as humans invented the concept of brainstorming... why is it that I have yet to hear a single thought as to what we can do to address our very survival!
Is survival not important to you? Do you believe global warming isn't going to affect you?

I'm not saying a cure has to be found... just a remedy that will allow at least the majority of us to live through this. Has the world really decided to lay down and die, content knowing it was someone else's fault? Has the world gone INSANE?!


Anyhow, I just wanted to state, that the issue of Global Warming, is NOT one sides fault. And usher in the idea that we seriously need to start finding solutions, not pointing fingers.




posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
there is no indisputable proof of humans effecting global warming there are way too many variables to say this

the sun, volcanic eruptions, natural fires,Active volcano under antarctica, slight changes in weather and im sure theres many more.
Anyways co2 has increased only about .01% and co2 is not poison its the most beneficial gas to plants and algae ="the environment" if anything an increase will only help
there is indisputable evidence that it happens in cycles through ice cores





posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by evolutionz
there is no indisputable proof of humans effecting global warming there are way too many variables to say this

the sun, volcanic eruptions, natural fires,Active volcano under antarctica, slight changes in weather and im sure theres many more.
Anyways co2 has increased only about .01% and co2 is not poison its the most beneficial gas to plants and algae ="the environment" if anything an increase will only help
there is indisputable evidence that it happens in cycles through ice cores





I do always love an argument from ignorance (a fallacy). Just because there is not 100% definitive proof does not mean that the evidence that is there can be tossed aside as if it doesn't exist. Actually, you proved my point as well because the evidence you cited is no more definitive than the evidence offered for our contribution to global warming.

Accept the fact that both sides have good points and that there are valid arguments to be made on either side. Whether we have caused it or not, we have a responsibility to take care of our home. If our earth is in trouble (even if it isn't our fault), we have a responsibility to prepare for that and try to minimize the effects on ourselves and our families and others on the planet.

Why is that so difficult to understand?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 06:13 AM
link   
good, i hope we can agree then that focusing on a single type of gas is just the same, mentally speaking, attaching blame.

conserve natural habitats, especially oceans, rainforests, etc, reduce toxin emissions and improve efficiency, a ok.

what are we really seeing? one useless hype after the other, mandatory flourescent lamps instead of wattage guidelines, which would invariably favor LEDs instead. biofuels, which destroy the environment, establish a quality-free market and create hunger...

so in short, yes, the world IS insane. insane and greedy. now good luck convincing anybody that cutting down an acre of rainforest is worse than emitting another kilogram of CO2.


oh, btw, why don't people just buld dams to retain water if they fear draught? not enough scam money in it? some people will never get enough.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
according to these 31,000 scientists.
man made global warming is a scam
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

We need solutions!


I agree.



Even if we're not due for a major climate shift for a few thousand years, it doesn't hurt anyone to try and think up a way to deal with it right now.

I always find it kinda strange how people who fall back on this argument of 'it isn't man-made' are essentially saying "It's not our fault!" and "Let the future generations deal with it!" at the same time.

We know it occurs naturally, so why aren't we worrying about it?




p.s; you asked for a solution, you naughty boy.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by scarlett1125

I do always love an argument from ignorance (a fallacy). Just because there is not 100% definitive proof does not mean that the evidence that is there can be tossed aside as if it doesn't exist. Actually, you proved my point as well because the evidence you cited is no more definitive than the evidence offered for our contribution to global warming.

Accept the fact that both sides have good points and that there are valid arguments to be made on either side. Whether we have caused it or not, we have a responsibility to take care of our home. If our earth is in trouble (even if it isn't our fault), we have a responsibility to prepare for that and try to minimize the effects on ourselves and our families and others on the planet.

Why is that so difficult to understand?



ignorance thats a good one ^FAIL^

The other side does not have good points its based on predictions that have been proven inaccurate
not record keeping like the other side
You give the earth very little credit its been here in much healthier conditions with increased co2
increased co2 bottom line will benefit the earth with increase food
and burning of fossil fuels also emits aerosols which cause global cooling
Living the a warming trend should be left untouched as its a natural cycle

If your talking about garbage , mercury, carbon monoxide, nox emmission which are lethal in a short period of time thats another story



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
according to these 31,000 scientists.
man made global warming is a scam
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Actually, we've already shown that survey to be fraudulent. So don't try to use it.


Now...

WHAT DID I JUST SAY in the first post?

Anyone?

I stated that we need to STOP BLAMING, AND START THINKING OF SOLUTIONS.

What part of that didn't make sense to you?


If you want to try and have a debate over who's fault it is, then GET OUT.
I don't want to hear another word about who's fault it is. I don't care who's fault it is, we need to think of solutions...


I'll start.

How about gathering some of the high altitude survey results, and looking at the possibility of intentionally chemically re-balancing the ozone layer to it's former status?

Anyone?

[edit on 2-6-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
How about gathering some of the high altitude survey results, and looking at the possibility of intentionally chemically re-balancing the ozone layer to it's former status?


Are you contending that the hole in the ozone layer causes global warming? If anything fixing the hole would hurt, as it would probably accelerate GW. Messing around with Mother Nature is never a very good idea IMO.

The only real way to offset CO2 emissions, if that is what you want, is to grow / build carbon sinks; ie massivle plant growth in areas with little current plant growth or use technology to "scrub" CO2 out of the air. I'll grant you that deforestation doesn't help when you look at the "carbon footprint" of forests as opposed to grasslands. Both would work theoretically, however it probably won't stop it as you yourself have conceeded that GW has other causes other than Manmade. Concentrations of CO2 have been far larger in the past and life has continued to flourish here on Earth. Change is inevitable, resistance to nature is futile.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by pavil]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
If you are talking serious about turning around the CO2 balance we need to figure out a way to keep additional CO2 out of the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration is what we need and old growth forests are a great place to do just that. We should manage a sizeable (10-20+++% ballpark) portion of our national forest land for old growth forests. We should recycle all paper and put scrubbers on smokestacks including our house chimneys if that is possible.

I would trade solutions to our problems for placing blame any old time.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

I'll start.

How about gathering some of the high altitude survey results, and looking at the possibility of intentionally chemically re-balancing the ozone layer to it's former status?

Anyone?



unintended consequences inbound?

www.fdrproject.org...

why don't you try to assess the situation before you propose radical measures just to 'stop it'? not sure another degree overal temperature would have a marked effect everywhere, but...

which regions will experience more rain, which ones less? longer growing seasons? why not plant different crops then? why not try to adapt existing ones to the new climate before it arrives. you alledgedly know the future, don't you?

curing symptoms you say? maybe, but more like exploiting them and adapting. that's what evolution is believed to be about, right?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
why don't you try to assess the situation before you propose radical measures just to 'stop it'?


It's called brainstorming.

The whole point is to weigh options, and eliminate the infeasible ones.

If my option is infeasible, then fine. Thats the whole point to brainstorming.

Do I have the final say? Did I say I was going to push to have this done? No.
It was an option placed on the table to be looked at and eliminated or accepted.


Now, more options please.


In the event that we cannot re-balance nature ourselves. What options do we have on ensuring our own survival?

Let's look at these options as well.

Lets look at what the effects of global warming are, and how mankind can either adapt or avoid.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

In the event that we cannot re-balance nature ourselves. What options do we have on ensuring our own survival?

Let's look at these options as well.

Lets look at what the effects of global warming are, and how mankind can either adapt or avoid.


Well, one would think we would have very few options - the proverbial 'adapt or die' class of SitX springs to mind most prominently.

There are numerous ways in which we can adapt, of course, after all it won't be the entire earth that experiences an ice age, merely the areas about 40% greater than the polar circles (80% of earth's surface).

There will be areas of Earth still habitable for our everyday way of life, although of course they will be hotly contested by pretty much anyone who doesn't want to live in a thermally viable hole which also happens to be vulnerable to earthquakes.

These are the two main methods of which we would survive, but there's always going to be oddballs - those bizarre pillars of humanity whom choose to try and survive despite the overall drop in air temperature, perhaps by living off of some creature that could stand the cold and yet produce a decent amount of offspring (i thought of penguins, for some reason).

They'll be the ones who truly adapt to the problem, and become stronger because of it.

The world will not truly become a place to be despaired upon, but it will probably at the very least knock us back a few thousand years if we don't prepare for it properly.

Assuming of course, it happens within the next few thousand years.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

It's called brainstorming.

The whole point is to weigh options, and eliminate the infeasible ones.



i understand the purpose of such creativity techniques, the issue starts where such solutions are then adopted in a frenzy. the best way to ensure an honest discourse is to handle it like a vote, ie. you don't get to read other peoples' ideas before submitting your own, thereby alleviating groupthink.


imho, the biggest chance if climate did really change would be to save areas which face desertification through a conservation effort (plant resilent vegetation, conserve rainfall, then irrigate when required) while actively developing deserts with then increased precipitation.

that way, usable land area could actually increase for a change.

PS: this may be obvious but why not design buildings in a way which is conducive to their environments? i'm thinking of reducing air condition and heating requirements?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I'm thinking of a couple of things right off the top of my head here. Carbon sequestration for starters for sure. Another possibility is increasing construction of houses that are for the most part underground. One could even plant grasses on top of it. Increase usage of (and construction of) nuclear powerplants and retire coal burning powerplants. Increase forest plantings. If need be perhaps deployment of a solar shield of sorts to cut down on the amount of sunlight (a very, very small percent) of incoming light and heat.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
IMO global warming the Earth's way of regeneration... Think about it, when a tree falls over and dies it doesn't just sit there.... It Rots and then things eat the rot and eventually it is recycled after time to become many other things. Well if people stop populating so rapidly the Earth may have some time to recover and regenerate it's natural resources which we gobble up so aimless and carelessly.

The only way the Earth can do this is by "Rotting" and regenerating into new things, you may ask how is this rotting?

Well let me tell you, In order for rot to take place there has to be some kind of action first, when things decompose they naturally give off heat. So this "Global warming is the combination of many instances."

IE. Cooperations bottling water and soft drinks by the billions using water from lakes, Glaciers and Icebergs. Almost every household purchasing swimming pools which a standard pool contains anywhere from 50 to 90,000 liters of water. Ok so all this displaced water has taken away from the Earths natural cooling ability of the vast lakes, oceans, and seas.
(One chip of paint off the way goes unnoticed for a while where as many chips stick out like a sore thumb)

Mass amounts of CO2 emissions at an unstable rate combined with deforestation at a record highs, there is lowered amounts of plants to absorb the CO2 and create sufficient amounts of O2 back into the atmosphere. Thus creating the "Smog effect" or as you may know it as the greenhouse effect.
(This is like turning on your high beams in a dense fog, the light is refracted in all directions by the water vapours in the air.)

There are more variables to take into effect but all and all you see what I'm getting at. To make a long story short the Earth feels like it is dying and needs to rot to recycle.

This happens every 10,000 or so years as cycles, first a hot cycle which all weak life forms die off, then a cold cycle to slow down and halt the disease process, when the thawing occurs every dead thing acts as compost and allows Nature to regenerate.

Don't take it personal, and try to do your part, after all you are a tenant to the Earth and you are not here permanently.


apc

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
For starters everyone should quit fussing about CO2. Focus energy on real threats like methane.

Personally I like the way the climate is headed so I don't want to do anything about it. Kind of like trying to hold back a tsunami. Once it's on your shore there's not a whole lot you can do about it but run. Fast.

I think accelerated and amplified is kinda redundant, btw.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


First off, im sorry if someone already touched on this, i didnt read ALL of the posts...my eyes are starting to hurt


BUT! I want to say this before i go rest my eyes.

I agree w/ the OP in this way

I can prove to you that global warming isnt mans fault. Science proves it for me. Climate change has been observed in soil samples and ice samples for decades now, by scientists.

Global cooling patterns and warming patterns have existed long before we tred the earth.
Now we come along and start putting Co2 into the air.....or are we?

If it comes from the earth, how can it be bad for the earth?
It may be bad for humans, but how is it bad for the earth? I mean, you're not introducing some oxygen strangling martian air from Planet x142938.291fb

But on the other hand, looking at natural cycles in all ecosystems (no matter how small)
once that ecosystem has been established, a slight change in anything is going to effect the over all ecosystem.

What i mean is, we're not killing the planet by emmitting more Co2 than what it is used to. But who's to say thats hurting the planet? Why is it not possible that the planet simply responds by producing more planet life to eat up all of that delicious plant food?

Its like a fish tank.
Fish will not breed or grow larger, when there is not an abundance of food. Fish will always grow to the size of the tank, and never larger. If you 'over feed' your fish, you're changing their ecosystem, and they must adapt to compensate.
They grow larger because there's more food.

Its an endless debate, i agree, but i find that i rarely loose interest in it, until it turns political....then im out



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join