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.
WHAT??? that is an insane comment.
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.
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.
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.
The part experiencing the melting and the publicity, as you mentioned, is mainly the Antarctic Peninsula
The two maps show some similarities, but visually they reveal very different trends.
Much of the Antarctic is a desert and therefore receives very little overall precipitation.
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?
It's just common sense.
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
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.
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
We should start investing in renewable energy such as photovoltaic cells or windpower as your post clearly implies?
Trouble is, the whole global warming thing goes back to the 19th century. How long has this conspiracy been running?
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.