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.

 

Isn't Global Warming obvious?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The world seems to want to blame global warming on the things we do in our everyday lives. But I think they are missing a big addition that we're contributing. Sure cars probably don't help one bit to reduce global warming, and I'm sure we should still work on more eco-friendly steps to reducing their impact, but I think the main addition we are completely missing.

In general, I think that global warming is caused by our immobile construction. For example, go to any shopping mall. Ever try walking across a huge parking lot on a hot summer day with no shoes? The pavement gets ridiculously hot from being in the sun all day, being cooked. Go back a decade when that shopping mall wasn't there, and I'm sure it was covered with trees. Obviously, trees absorb the sunlight and use it in photosynthesis. Leaves don't get ridiculously hot like pavement, because they absorb the sunlight.

Now with cities going up faster and faster each year, we are cutting down trees, which although is not a good solution, the real killer is were replacing them with sources that basically attract heat from the sun, and don't have anyway of absorbing it, but instead reflect it.

I'm sure there are a lot of things we can fix about our transportation, like new energy sources, but this is just a cover up to still allow money to be made. We don't need to invent new cars, we need to invent new roads. After all, the road existed way before the car.

There are many other sources, cars just being an easy example.




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The only thing obvious about global warming is that there is no such thing. It's just one more diversonary tactic from a corrupt power hungry mass that couldn't think of any other lies to make people believe.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Universal Light
The only thing obvious about global warming is that there is no such thing. It's just one more diversonary tactic from a corrupt power hungry mass that couldn't think of any other lies to make people believe.


I second this motion. We may have a small impact on the air quality but that's about it. CO2 is naturally occurring and has always been here. Why then do we now believe it's so detrimental to our atmosphere? Another thing is that when we started recording temperatures we were in a naturally low temperature period. Of course the temperature will go up and down over hundreds or thousands of years. Even if it were true what are you worried about anyway? The Law of Displacement shows us that any ice that melts will not affect the level of the oceans. The only water that WOULD add to the ocean levels are glacial ranges that are based on land, which is not a large enough portion to do any real damage anyway.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Nope global warming could also be natrual. I mean from what ive heard climate change over a great number of years. (The Ice age anyone?)



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
There is a climate change. Not to notice it is weird. Ice capes on mountains are retreating,tornado in Poland, there was a small tornado couple of years ago even here. Big questions are - are we the cause? Because there were climate changes before us. And if it is indeed us - the question is what is CO2 emission's role in all that.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I agree with Shadowshocker163. One can feel the heat in an area that has less vegetation and massive amounts of structures and pavement. Ad to that the heat generated by air conditioning units, combustion engines and heat producing friction from drive train components, tires, brakes, clutches, etc. from conventional modes of transport and other sources related to populated areas and you've got an over loaded system. There is a state park nearby with a lake that is used to cool a lignite coal powered electrical generating plant. It is possible to swim there in early March, but in July and August most people can't handle the heat. Children that unknowingly run out into the water, will exit screaming and crying. A natural change in the climate compounded by an unnatural production of heat couldn't be a good thing, unless the goal is to reduce the population of living beings on the planet.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Scurvy
 


There is enough water locked up in the ice in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets to have a huge effect on the global sea level (see Table 1 here. Why write such rubbish? Maybe this shows why you don't believe in climate change. The scientific community has a huge concensus on this that there is climate change and it is human induced. You might disagree but the science and scientists think this is true.

*edit* To add some links

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Iggus]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
More of the US is covered by woodlands than 50 years ago i believe were at about 37% of the land mass

mikell



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Well then Iggus if you believe this then here's your chance to get rich.

This Link is a challenge that is offering $500,000 for concrete proof of global warming. Take your links and try proving this. For all the tax money and government actions to "cut greenhouse gasses" funny how we still can't find anybody to prove this in a scientific method when the people who believe it are scientists themselves.

EDIT TO ADD: Your link cites greenhouse gas emissions as the cause for the increase in water and ice melt which gives it no credibility to me.

[edit on 22/8/2008 by Scurvy]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Melting ice caps are obvious, global warming is not. The warming isn't global at all. There are other possible reasons for climate change which are largely being ignored, but GW is the fad right now.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
hello



Isn't Global Warming obvious


it is in the AM matey!

david



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scurvy
. CO2 is naturally occurring and has always been here. Why then do we now believe it's so detrimental to our atmosphere?


Why do you believe that global warming is all about CO2? Especially when the OP has started this thread by explaining another aspect of AGW which has nothing to do with CO2?

People should look at the science, not just listen to what the politicians and TV celebrities say


www.sciencedaily.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.independent.co.uk...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk.../earth/2007/08/02/eahaze102.xml



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Scurrvy, you may wish to deny GW but are you denying that the concensus view of climate scientists is for human induced climate change?

As to worrying about the post stating that CO2 plays a role in the melting of ice due to increased atmospheric temperature, what else would you expect? It is irrelevant to the numbers listed in the table which just state what the sea level chane would be if the ice sheets melted and not why the ice sheets may melt.

I thought that this site was about denying ignorance, not burying your head in the sand and ignoring facts so that your viewpoint is maintained.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Because global warming in itself is ridiculous. The world isn't going to stay temperate for all eternity. I'm sorry but a rise in water temp. of 1 degree C in 100 years does not concern me. Nor does a couple of millimetres of extra water in the ocean. It's fearmongering so they can take more taxes from you. In Canada one political party was trying to push a Carbon Tax on all greenhouse gas emissions. I understand the OP isn't talking about greenhouse gasses but the whole concept of global warming is ludicrous. There is NO reason to be worried.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Scurvy
 


It's a disingenuos straw dog.

In order to win you have to prove something will happen by 2100.

No-one alive today can possibly win
Besides, how much will $500,000 be worth in 2100?

A cleverly worded scam.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Scurvy
 


But none of that means AGW isn't happening


The way our politicians react to AGW and use it against us is a completely different issue. By arguing against the science rather than the policies we let them get away with it.

If they imposed a 20% tax on petrol due to declining elephant populations would you concentrate your energies on trying to prove that elephant populations were not declining?

Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on showing that the taxes will not have any effect on elephant populations?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Iggus
 


If we were at a point where ALL of the ice in the world melted then yes those land based glaciers will make a big difference. As I stated a rise of 1 degree Celsius is not going to make this occur. I'm not burying my head in any way actually. It is you who chooses to believe what you are told without researching it.

As for scientific views look up The Oregon Petition. You'll find over 18,000 signatures of credible scientists stating that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


If you can show me concrete evidence I have no problem changing my viewpoint.
From what I've read there is no cause for concern though. Yes the temperature is rising, I'm trying to tell YOU why it isn't a cause for concern so that I'm not the only one standing on the picket line. Why would you protest the tax without having a good reason to not be paying it?

EDIT TO ADD: I think either method of approach works. If I can prove there is no global warming then they CAN'T tax. If I argue why the taxes do not affect greenhouse gas emissions then I will be faced with excuses as to where the tax is going and what it will be used for. I think proving that the theory is erroneous is a better scientific method. Fighting against the tax is a social method.

[edit on 22/8/2008 by Scurvy]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scurvy

As for scientific views look up The Oregon Petition. You'll find over 18,000 signatures of credible scientists stating that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate.


And 18 million scientists of equal or greater credibility did not sign it


I think their argument was with regards CO2 anyway, ignoring all the other aspects of AGW.

I will bet $1,000,000 that no-one can prove that human activity does not affect climate!



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Yes OP the point you make is valid. See this link on Albedo and this one on Albedo and Global Warming. Enjoy.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join