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 cancelled?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Right,

Let's say for a minute that global warming doesn't exist. Is it such a bad thing that we actively reduce our use of resources and encourage ways to promote efficiency? Especially as China and India are now consuming as much natural resources as they can get their hands on.
These are all finite resources, including oil. It won't last forever, so isn't it better that we encourage efficiency? Regardless of the need to protect the planet? It's just common sense.
When we're having to mine old landfill sites to extract copper from wires etc due to unsustainable overuse you'll all be whining about why no-one warned you.




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
There have been several ice ages and several times when the earth was hotter...and there were no cars back then.

The earth is billions of years old....we are a blink of an eye. The whole global warming bit is to scare people into new laws (financed by new taxes and governed by a new agency. These same people were screaming new ice age back in the 1970's.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
Your data doesnt match with the increased intensity of droughts and hurricanes over the decades, which can be proved easily as the after effects of global warming.
WHAT??? that is an insane comment.
there is no hurricane increase. and no increase in drought.
where is your data?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Siblin

That is interesting about the cycling flow of ice, thanks for the explanation; as I understand it, the ice moves at a maximum of a few feet per year.

Glad to help, and I believe you are correct about the rate (without looking it up). It is a very slow process.


The map you provided, however, does not show that there was no average increase in temperature for Antarctica. It actually states that there was insufficient data for the region to produce a reliable temperature trend.

I have to concede on this; there is no direct data on the Antarctic region itself. There is a pattern of temperature anomaly decreasing to 0°C at the Southern edge of the data area, however, which would interpolate to the Antarctic having no temperature increase. This compares to the edge of the data range in the Northern regions where wide temperature anomalies are shown.


The part experiencing the melting and the publicity, as you mentioned, is mainly the Antarctic Peninsula

Absolutely, and the map I referenced shows a temperature spike in the vicinity, specifically along the eastern coast of South America. This would appear in my mind to be at least a partial explanation for the ice breakdown along the peninsula.

This is the reason I am so suspect of reports which seem to indicate a problem with Global Warming: so far, even the most 'scientific' studies appear to focus on one single phenomena, and extrapolate it to indicate doom and gloom. I would gladly welcome any real research which looks at the situation on a holistic level to try and determine what, if any, conditions are at cause. Instead, the reports I have seen are all attempts to prove that one specific thing (usually anthropogenic CO2 levels) is responsible. As Dr_Strangecraft (very correctly) pointed out above, real science will test a hypothesis by attempts to disprove it, rather than by attempts to prove it. This is simply not being done (or at least is being hidden from the public eye).


The two maps show some similarities, but visually they reveal very different trends.

I commend you on your information. I do see more similarities than differences, however, and those similarities appear to reinforce my beief that any polar warming is coming from the seas, not from the atmosphere (and therefore not form CO2 levels in it):

Both images indicate the warmer regions to be located near water, and a cooling trend over the larger land mass. This indicates an oceanic source of heat, which would be more likely to cause melting of ice than atmospheric warming. the specific heat capacity of water is many times greater than the specific heat capacity of air, meaning a small temperature increase indicates a much higher heat energy increase in water. Also, heat tends to rise; if one wishes to heat a pot of water, one generally places a heat source under it rather than blowing hot air across it. There s a very good reason for this: heat tends to rise, as thermal expansion in the medium causes a density decrease. Thusly, if ice is melting (as reports do indicate in certain areas), it is much more logical to search for warmer water temperatures than to look to warmer air temperatures as a culprit.

I should add I have bookmarked both links you provided. Thanks for the info.



Much of the Antarctic is a desert and therefore receives very little overall precipitation.

And yet, we learn from fossil records that this area was a lush forest in eons past.
I guess that just reinforces this idea that the planet is constantly undergoing climactic changes, whether humans burn oil or not.

My congratulations on a well-thought-out and well-presented post. Starred.


TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Methane Bubbles Climate Trouble - Siberia


Thawing Siberian bogs are releasing more of the greenhouse gas methane than previously believed, according to new scientific research.

Scientists from Russia and the US measured methane bubbling from a number of thawing lakes.

Writing in the journal Nature, they suggest the methane release is hastened by warmer temperatures, positively feeding back into global warming.

Methane's contribution to present-day global warming is second only to CO2.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that atmospheric concentrations are about two and a half times those seen in pre-industrial times.


Methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times greater than previously estimated
Katey Walker and colleagues
"Thaw lakes in north Siberia are known to emit methane, but the magnitude of these emissions remains uncertain," the scientists write.

"We show that methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times greater than previously estimated."

The lakes are produced in summers when land which is usually permanently frozen - permafrost - melts.

Bubble traps

The study depended on the systematic deployment of bubble traps on two lakes in the Cherskii region of Siberia, supplemented by ground-based and aerial observations of a further 95 lakes.

Katey Walker from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks and her colleagues calculate that across the region, thaw lakes lakes emit 3.8 teragrams (Tg, million million grams) per year.


Click here to see how much Arctic permafrost is projected to disappear in the coming decades

More details
The contribution of these lakes is small compared to the IPCC estimate of total global methane production, 600 Tg per year.

More than half of this total comes from human activities, notably farming.

The importance of the Siberian release may lie in the relationship between warming and methane production.

If a high release rate of a greenhouse gas is being triggered by rising temperatures, that will in turn stimulate still higher temperatures - a positive feedback mechanism.

Extra context comes from the age of the emerging gas. Using radiocarbon techniques, the researchers showed that some of the escaping methane molecules had been formed more than 40,000 years ago.

The area of the planet covered by permafrost is projected to shrink as the surface warms.

Boreholes in permafrost in Svalbard, Norway, indicate that ground temperatures rose 0.4C over the past decade, four times faster than they did in the previous century.
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman

Let's say for a minute that global warming doesn't exist. Is it such a bad thing that we actively reduce our use of resources and encourage ways to promote efficiency? Especially as China and India are now consuming as much natural resources as they can get their hands on.

I was wondering when this would come up. It always does.

I am a firm believer in common-sense usage of natural resources. But thus far, the 'solutions' presented are anything but common sense. The cap and trade solution to CO2 levels places a huge economic burden on the more developed countries, while specifically ignoring any restrictions whatsoever on older, dirtier technology use in less developed countries. As you correctly pointed out, two of these (China and India) are right now undergoing massive growth that dwarfs any growth ever seen before, even in the United States. This growth is perpetrated on the use of older technology, making both countries much more polluting than any of the first-world countries.

Amid all this, CO2 levels have not even been proven to be the culprit in any climate change situations. Read my previous reply to Silbin and you will see another plausible explanation, one that makes more sense to explain the ice melts in the polar regions.

A more common-sense approach, in my mind, would be to get some sort of treaty that would demand the export of cleaner technologies while demanding the usage of these technologies by developing countries. Should this, or any similar program, be implemented, it would not be heinous to require first-world countries to continue advancements in efficiency and conservation. But as long as the former is omitted, the latter is superfluous.


These are all finite resources, including oil. It won't last forever, so isn't it better that we encourage efficiency?

I will disagree with the finiteness of our resources. No oil has actually been used up since the planet first existed. The component of oil have been chemically re-arranged, yes, but they have not disappeared. All of the carbon is still here; all of the hydrogen is still here; all of the sulfur is still here.

I personally believe oil is generated by geologic forces in the absence of oxygen. Others believe (as you apparently do) that oil is finite and generated by pressure on organic material only. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with either belief; time will tell which side is correct. But at the present time, there is no oil shortage.


It's just common sense.

I would personally define common sense in the methods listed above, as well as using resources more efficiently without placing undue hardship on the impoverished among us. The purpose of efficiency and conservation is plenty for all, at affordable prices. The present schemes being touted by our 'leaders' do exactly the opposite; they promote a lack of resources for those who are not in the leadership, and higher prices for those who lack the ability to pay them.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman
[

These are all finite resources, including oil. It won't last forever, so isn't it better that we encourage efficiency?



I personally believe oil is generated by geologic forces in the absence of oxygen. Others believe (as you apparently do) that oil is finite and generated by pressure on organic material only. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with either belief; time will tell which side is correct. But at the present time, there is no oil shortage.

[TheRedneck


Regardless of anaerobic or aerobic processes, it still takes thousands of years for the organic material under whatever forces it may or may not be, to create oil. Several other factors, including the composition of the rocks surrounding it, i.e. permeability and fracturing lead to oil only forming under the right conditions, meaning it isn't in abundance throughout the planet. That's why wars are fought in places such as Iraq whereby if it wasn't for the resources they'd be left to rot. (Anyway that's for another thread)
What i'm saying is that any commodity that is being depleted quicker than it can regenerate is therefore technically finite.
I'm not even gonna get into peak oil.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


However I do agree with some of your other points on carbon capping and emmisions trading, although it could be argued that we have had free reign for the last 200 years to develop and its unfair to put these pressures on developing nations.

It's only one planet and we've got to look after it. And no, i'm not some leftie or liberal or hippie. It's just like everything else, if you don't look after it it'll get ruined.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

These are all finite resources, including oil. It won't last forever, so isn't it better that we encourage efficiency?

I will disagree with the finiteness of our resources. No oil has actually been used up since the planet first existed. The component of oil have been chemically re-arranged, yes, but they have not disappeared. All of the carbon is still here; all of the hydrogen is still here; all of the sulfur is still here.

TheRedneck


Dude, did you even read what you wrote here? Seriously, that's not even an argument.
So I can go to your house, drink your beer outta your fridge and when you come home pi**ed off and shouting at me I can just say;

'Dude, your beer's still here, its just been chemically re-arranged'

I agree with what you're trying to say - energy doesn't disappear it merely changes form, but at the end of the day we can't run our cars off co2 or sulphur, we need them in the combination that constitutes oil.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by michigangirl

Sorry, but that's a pretty biased article. In the future, I would suggest you look for a few of these tell-tale signs when looking for good reliable information:

(All quotes are from news.bbc.co.uk... . All emphasis is mine)

Writing in the journal Nature, they suggest the methane release is hastened by warmer temperatures, positively feeding back into global warming.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Suggestions are not fact. Whenever an article uses the word 'suggest', it means the reporter is interpreting something the scientists involved said, in his/her own (usually uninformed and biased) words. Look for quotes directly from the scientists involved (some of these are below).


Methane's contribution to present-day global warming is second only to CO2.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Any time CO2 is mentioned, be wary. The amount of mythology surrounding CO2 levels and effects is comparable only to that found in Greek mythology.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that atmospheric concentrations are about two and a half times those seen in pre-industrial times.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The IPCC has put out so much questionable data on climate conditions that they have reached the level (IMO) of being questionable in themselves. Add to this the term 'estimates' that indicates no real reliable measurements, and we have an unreliable source for this entire paragraph.


"Thaw lakes in north Siberia are known to emit methane, but the magnitude of these emissions remains uncertain," the scientists write.

"We show that methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times greater than previously estimated."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Here we have actual statements by scientists, but notice the highlighted statements. Nothing is known for sure at this time. The scientists are studying the phenomena and have as yet no exact data. It is foolhardy to state definite conclusions (as this article attempts to do) based on an incomplete study.

In order to be able to make concrete determinations as to whether there really is a problem, the severity of the problem, and as to how to best go about correcting the problem (assuming it is serious enough to require correction), complete and precise data must be available. It is not in this case. Once complete and accurate data is available, the discussion as it pertains to Siberian methane release can proceed; otherwise we are just discussing what might happen if.

'What might happen if' is a poor way to shape policy. It's like refusing to go o vacation because your new car might break down.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman

You're right; peak oil is for another thread. My only reason for bringing it up here was to indicate that resources are not exactly finite, although I agree with you that the processes are slow and resources may be considered finite with respect to time


Dude, did you even read what you wrote here? Seriously, that's not even an argument.

Actually, it is an argument. In your example, I could just say "OK, put it back together like it was."

The point is that our resources are not being used up; the energy in them is being used up. Those are actually two completely different things. We can get more energy, as the planet is constantly bombarded by solar radiation (energy). We cannot create an atom, of oxygen, or an atom of carbon, or an atom of hydrogen.

I see your point, but I hope this allows you to see mine. The problem of resource finiteness is one of energy, not of matter.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman

You're right; peak oil is for another thread. My only reason for bringing it up here was to indicate that resources are not exactly finite, although I agree with you that the processes are slow and resources may be considered finite with respect to time


Dude, did you even read what you wrote here? Seriously, that's not even an argument.

Actually, it is an argument. In your example, I could just say "OK, put it back together like it was."

The point is that our resources are not being used up; the energy in them is being used up. Those are actually two completely different things. We can get more energy, as the planet is constantly bombarded by solar radiation (energy). We cannot create an atom, of oxygen, or an atom of carbon, or an atom of hydrogen.

I see your point, but I hope this allows you to see mine. The problem of resource finiteness is one of energy, not of matter.

TheRedneck


Right...so the energy of the constitutes of oil is finite then. We should start investing in renewable energy such as photovoltaic cells or windpower as your post clearly implies?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman

We should start investing in renewable energy such as photovoltaic cells or windpower as your post clearly implies?

Absolutely! Please don't think I am arguing against any form of energy we may discover to be useful, because I am not and never have. My only argument for oil is that the alternate sources of energy cannot yet replace oil. As soon as they can, we should stop using oil in favor of them. It would be foolhardy to suggest we immediately stop using oil at this point in history, but it is equally foolhardy to suggest that we do not need to find better ways to produce energy.

I say this not because oil is 'polluting' or 'bad for the planet', but simply because we do not need to depend on foreign powers to fuel our country. No country needs to do this. Self-sufficiency should be the goal of every nation, every state, every city, every community and every individual. That is common sense to my way of thinking.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I'd got you wrong TheRedneck, i'm glad we both agree on that one!

Though you were the usual breed of oil hungry anti-environmentalists and although I don't agree with your views that combustion of fossil fuels doesn't harm the planet, i'm with you on renewables but for different reasons. Most just dismiss the use of renewables as unfeasable, probably the same type of people that dismissed the combustion engine at the start of the century because it could only achieve speeds of 15mph and was extremely inefficient.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by Thebudweiserstuntman]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman
Don't feel bad, a lot of people get me wrong at first.

Oil is necessary at the present time, but not because it is 'better' than alternate sources, but simply because it's here now, and it's plentiful (if we go get it). That does not mean it is the end-all, be-all of energy. I like my full size Chevy pickup truck, but I also have an older Chevy LUV for a backup. As it is with energy, it is not wise to rely on only one source when others are available.

I think that a lot of people are upset at the wealth that companies who produce fuel make, and at the high prices that are staring all of us in the face whenever we have to fill up the gas tank. When people are angry, they tend to use whatever 'weapon' is available to extract revenge upon those who appear to be at fault. Thus it is with oil and Global Warming. If there is even a perception that somehow those evil companies who are socking it to the people financially are responsible for a coming catastrophe, people will embrace the idea. Unfortunately, there are quite a few who see this tendency as a way to extract even more money from the people and will gladly use displaced anger to feather their own pockets.

CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas, nor is it even more than a trace gas in our atmosphere. Indeed, it is a critical component of the life cycle. But it is one of two substances formed whenever hydrocarbons are burned, the other being water. Since everyone is familiar with water and it's benign (even helpful) properties, those who would exploit the anger of the population chose the other by-product, a relatively ignored gas called CO2, and they have made it out (falsely) to be a monster hiding under our proverbial bed, just waiting for the chance to jump out and 'get' us.

And of course, people fall for it. I do not; I understand what CO2 is, how it works, and it's role in the ecology (as much as anyone understands it anyway). I also understand how science works, and can see how unscientific the reports that create these threads of doom and gloom are.

I hope, now that you see that not everyone who scoffs at the Global Warming scam is not an oil-lover, perhaps you can take a closer look at the true science behind the myths and see for yourself that the people of the world are being fleeced for more than the oil companies are even accused of taking.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Trouble is, the whole global warming thing goes back to the 19th century. How long has this conspiracy been running?

www.lenntech.com...

It's not something new and it's not been invented to justify new taxes, any more than the discovery that the Earth orbits the sun was. Though I accept it's sometimes easier to believe in conspiracies than face reality.

Of course, just how much AGW is happening, and how much of that AGW is down to carbon emissions, is another matter



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Well im all about reality and truth... of course it wasnt invented to make money. But some people are now taking advantage of the situation and using it to scare people (ancient fear tactic) and make money, new laws etc. And THATS NO THEORY. That is what is happening. It IS reality. They went from calling it greenhouse effect to global warming.. im guessing som of the new GW people are trying to take advantage here.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan

Trouble is, the whole global warming thing goes back to the 19th century. How long has this conspiracy been running?

What you are referring to is a hypothesis that was suggested by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, according to the link you supplied. My initial impression is that something is amiss with this article, because at the time mainly steam-powered automobiles were used. According to inventors.about.com... , the very first patent for a gasoline-powered car was on January 29, 1886 by Karl Benz (DRP No. 37435), a scant ten years earlier. There were precious few gasoline automobiles being used at the time. The first assembly line, which made gasoline automobiles publicly available, was not in operation until around 1913-1914. Either Arrhenius was extremely far ahead of his time, or he was a psychic. At the time he proposed the hypothesis on CO2 emissions, there were no major industrial CO2 emissions.

From your source, www.lenntech.com... :

In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation. At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation. It was also discovered that water vapor absorbed totally different types of radiation than carbon dioxide. Gilbert Plass summarized these results in 1955. He concluded that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would intercept infrared radiation that is otherwise lost to space, warming the earth.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

In order to intercept infrared radiation, as Plass suggests, the absorption would be limited to the solar radiation that intercepts the atmosphere but not the planet itself. This is an extremely thin band of atmosphere where night and day merge, along the rim of the lit side of the planet. Bearing in mind that CO2 levels are much higher in the lower levels of the atmosphere (CO2 alone being a bit heavier than air), this area where infrared radiation interacts with atmosphere but not the planet itself becomes absolutely minuscule.

I am a bit hesitate to include the following segment due to length, but I feel it is absolutely essential to the argument. Mods forgive me:

In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. The curves showed a downward trend of global annual temperature from the 1940's to the 1970's. At the same time ocean sediment research showed that there had been no less than 32 cold-warm cycles in the last 2,5 million years, rather than only 4. Therefore, fear began to develop that a new ice age might be near. The media and many scientists ignored scientific data of the 1950's and 1960's in favor of global cooling.

In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The above clip is the nail in the coffin for Anthropogenic Global Warming. CO2 levels did not decrease during the period from the 40s until the 70s, yet global temperatures did decrease. In other words, the rise/fall of global average temperatures does not follow global CO2 levels in the short history that has been subject to study. Thusly, we have no reason to believe that it will follow CO2 levels in the future.


It's not something new and it's not been invented to justify new taxes, any more than the discovery that the Earth orbits the sun was. Though I accept it's sometimes easier to believe in conspiracies than face reality.

Fact: The overwhelming majority of Global Warming activists credit CO2 levels with being the most significant reason for AGW.

Fact: Recently, a CO2 scrubber was developed by Columbia University. It removes one ton of CO2 per day, using a minor amount of energy, and is designed as a personal use unit. That means that it will remove the total yearly CO2 contribution for an individual in 18 days (Source: features.csmonitor.com... ). Yet, Greenpeace, one of the largest and most vocal advocates of AGW, has denounced this invention for the stated reason that it would permit people to continue to use fossil fuels. Source: www.scribd.com...

Fact: The accepted 'solution' to AGW is the use of a carbon credit-based 'cap and trade' solution. Nothing in this 'solution' removes a single molecule of CO2 from the air. Therefore, this 'solution' cannot physically aid in the reduction of CO2. What this proposal does do is to enact a tax on companies (and I believe eventually individuals) that will prevent smaller companies form being able to compete in the world market, regardless of the validity of their ideas. The cost of purchasing carbon credits, even a small amount, would be prohibitive to poorly-financed smaller companies, while larger established companies would not have a problem paying this new tax. So instead of aiding in the creation of alternate energy sources and innovations, the cap and trade program will discourage any such innovations and only aid the companies who are in existence already with large sums of profit to pay out.

Fact: the Kyoto Protocol Treaty, which is touted by AGW activists as the major hope to stopping AGW (and which is the creating document for the cap and trade proposal), specifically excludes China and India, two of the fastest-growing contributors to CO2 output in the world. China alone is reported to be adding two coal-fired energy plants per week, and these are 'dirty' coal plants similar to those we used decades ago, not the newer 'clean' coal technology. This is akin to trying to drain one corner of a pool without worrying about the water level in the rest of the pool.

Fact: Those who have been advocates of the cap and trade proposals since their beginning are more often than not making huge sums of money from the carbon credit trade already (I understand certain countries have passed this proposal already).

You may well be correct that the initial studies of CO2 absorption of radiation were more scientific than political, but we are not living in 1896. The proposals before us today are indeed about taxation and control of the world finances. No other explanation would account for the facts listed above.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join