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.

 

Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Thanks so much for the kind words. I have opinions and I feel it would be a waste to have all this server space and not share them. I count on there being a large group that disagrees with what I believe, and in my vigerously defending my positions, I tend to learn a great deal. Sometimes about the oposite side. Have a great day.




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


In my defense, I am not wise in the ways of science, so this is as technical as I get on the interworkings of Global Warming, but I can read articles and charts and listen to other points of view. Those which have given me my belief on which side to take on this issue. I too aggee that we are destoying the planet at break neck speed and with reckless abandon, but we didn't cause a sudden surge in global temperature. (just like there have been many times in the past) All one needs to do is look at what science has to offer in ways of logging temperature for thousands of years, to see that this not at all a new phenominon.

Oh, and I think Al Gore is an idiot.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mpriebe81
 


I was reading an article about sun spots and how they have been very active in the last 10 years or so and that there might be a corelation to past warming trends. That would also explain why Mars is getting hotter. Unless those little green guys have fired up the coal boilers again.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pyrytyes
 


you are the guy who people should be listening to. Someone who can look at temperature trends in core samples for thousands of years in different areas. If this happened once before in the days before the industrial revolution, then it would be safe to assume there might be a trend or cycle to the global temperature. Thanks for your input and enjoy your rocks.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mpriebe81
 


still comparing apples and oranges. Unless they have had weather stations strewn across the solar system for the last several hundred years, no one is in a position to decide what the temps are on another planet.
If we can't agree what is happening on our planet, we certainly can't decide what is happening on others that we haven't even stepped on.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Climatologists use the same science that everyone else uses. A lot of them are those people who study climatology on the side. They use the same info as the geologists, the volcanologists, the archeologists, arborists, whomever.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pyrytyes
 


Then it is all relatives. The poles have always been cold. So what difference does it make if it was sampled today or 10k years ago?

if the cold water and the cold ice act as a sink trapping the CO2, technically, if there is global warming, and they are warmer and melting, it should be recording LESS CO2, not more.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


80% of Americans believe that we have nuclear power. Many believe that others have nuclear weapons also.

A volley of nuclear weapons, with a touch of the magic red button, could start a volley between us and say, Russia. I believe, not sure, it takes about 6 hours for a missle to reach each others countries. It has been awhile but I think it would take about 15 nukes to launch the northern hemisphere into a nuclear winter that would last at least 50 years.

So between all the powers we have, we could destroy the planet 40 times over in a matter of hours. So why is it so hard to believe that 5 billion people and 150 years of industry can't cause GW?

I worked in a very large environmental lab. The stuff that is out there would absolutely boggle you. hence the reason you said we are destorying the planet at mind bending rates. And we are.


But there is all the stuff that we DONT know about. You think every company is honest? How many undiscovered superfund sites are out there? How much is being dumped into the oceans?

There are some scary superfund sites out there. There are whole communities developing cancer. There are whole villages in China that are getting cancer from heinous business practices.

Even in my line of work,( I am a well tester) stuff has come up from businesses that were plain old forgotten about.

Look around your room. Every single item had to be manufactured. It had to be produced somewhere. It got shipped around 5 times. Every single step from the harvesting of the raw materials to being shipped to your store to coming to your house requires energy and causes by products.

Just look at a jar of peanut butter. a field was created to grow the peanuts. the peanuts were shipped somewhere. The plastic bottle was manufactured. the label was manufactured. a factory had to put them together. It had to be shipped to the store. You drove it to your home. It took a lot of energy for that little jar of peanut butter. (is it any mystery then we have a fuel crisis?

every single item in our lives went through this process. Multiply that by the billions of consumers.

makes you wonder how that peanut butter is only 2 bucks. lol.

Now multiply that by the number of years we have been doing this. Most of those before the meager restrictions we have.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


"...if there is global warming, and they are warmer and melting, it should be recording LESS CO2, not more."

You said it better than I did!



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I guess you missed my links. The reason I feel as I do is the scientific data provided by geologists using core samples to determine the average temperature over a very wide reange of time. And from my understanding, that is the only way to get that data. But anyway, they have been able to prove, time and again, that there have been several periods in earths history, where the temperatures have gone up and then back down much like they are going up right now. So for one to assume that in all the other times in history where this happened, and we didnt' have all the factories and cars, is different, would be quite ignorant on our part. A trend is a trend. As I stated earlier, I am not disagreeing that we are destroying the earth. We are not causing Al Gores global warming IMHO.

But I put this thread out because I love irony. I think humor is the key to living a good life. If you can't laugh, you will die a bitter ugly person with a sour look on your face. So while I think that nuclear weapons are very bad, I can't do anything about them, so I am going to find humor where I can and enjoy life. (We sent probes to mars to get all that temperature stuff.)



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by network dude
 


80% of Americans believe that we have nuclear power. Many believe that others have nuclear weapons also.








By the way, I am pretty sure that the number of folks who believe we have nuclear power is more like 100%. They have these "nuclear power plants" all over. To provide power. And we all know about the nuclear weapon thing. "Cold war"



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


LOL common sense would tell you it is 100%. I was surprised at 80% myself, till I thought about it. I guess the 80% is the people who think the gov't are bluffing. Most people have never seen a nuke with their own eyes, so how do you really know?



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I don't think that core samples are the only way to get data. The geological time record gives quite a bit of info too. For example..if you know that a certain fern needs such and such temps to grow or reproduce, and it doesn't exist in certain layers, you can somewhat deduce that the time period was too cool for them. You cross reference that with other tools and you can get a good idea. For ex. you check petrified tree rings and see the thickness for that year, and match that with a core sample, and then cross that archeologists to see if the people found were wearing more clothes. Okay, made that last part up.


But you get my drift.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Have you even seen the 82nd airborne?
You now as they jump, the second SAS in the UK is instantly mobilized.
I think you have to understand the meaning of what you are up against.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Oh, goody! A day off work, and a new Global Warming thread... what more could a redneck want?

This is better than a six-pack and a bug zapper.


First to the OP, the weather at one place during one time period is obviously not necessarily the average over a longer period of time. But I do have to admit, this is a funny punctuation to the truly quasi-science that supports AGW and Cap& Trade.

Now, to the rest of the thread:
reply to post by rizla

On the other hand, Uncle Exxon is very proud of you...

Yeah, but Uncle Rothschild is not happy at all. See this thread, referring to this article.

Apparently, environmentalism makes for interesting bedfellows as much as politics...

-------------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox

Mars is hardly indicative of the entire solar system. Especially when its heating up can be contributed to volcanism and its orbit.

Yeah, those Martian volcanoes tend to give off heat, unlike the Earth-based ones under the Arctic Ocean.

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.

“Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process,” according to an international team that sent unmanned probes to the strange fiery world beneath the Arctic ice.

They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. “Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water,” says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.
Source: www.canada.com...

I did a comparison a few AGW threads back and found a startling correlation between global temperature anomalies and undersea volcanic activity. It's a shame we aren't on Mars, where it would mean something.


-----------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox

still comparing apples and oranges. Unless they have had weather stations strewn across the solar system for the last several hundred years, no one is in a position to decide what the temps are on another planet.
If we can't agree what is happening on our planet, we certainly can't decide what is happening on others that we haven't even stepped on.

Well, actually, yes they can. Certain substances change in relation to temperature the same on other planets as well as on the Earth. I know it's weird, but it's almost like the laws of physics apply to everywhere.

As for us not agreeing, I thought everyone who believed in AGW also believed there was no disagreement on it?


--------------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox

Climatologists use the same science that everyone else uses. A lot of them are those people who study climatology on the side. They use the same info as the geologists, the volcanologists, the archeologists, arborists, whomever.

But, I thought you said volcanoes were hot on Mars and substances melted and froze at different temperatures?


--------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox

So between all the powers we have, we could destroy the planet 40 times over in a matter of hours. So why is it so hard to believe that 5 billion people and 150 years of industry can't cause GW?

I worked in a very large environmental lab. The stuff that is out there would absolutely boggle you. hence the reason you said we are destorying the planet at mind bending rates. And we are.

OK, I can get serious with this post.

If you work in an environmental lab, surely you are aware of the true contaminents and the effects of various chemicals. Sulfur is a great example. My well water contains a hefty amount of sulfur. People tell me it smells bad (although neither I nor my children can smell it at all, having grown up with it), but unhealthy? No, it is perfectly healthy. Lime as well, while some people don't like drinking cloudy water, is perfectly healthy. Introduce some bacteria, or some pharmaceuticals, and the water is still clear and tastes the same, but now it can be deadly.

The point is that just because to the untrained eye something appears 'nasty', that does not make it dangerous. To many people today, smog has been renamed 'carbon dioxide', when it is actually a mixture of sulfates and nitrates, with a little elemental carbon thrown in. CO2 on the other hand, is colorless and odorless and not harmful in doses less than 30 times the present amount. That's what fear and propaganda will do: it will twist the perceptions of the public to foster belief in what is not exactly true.

And that is why I do not believe in AGW. Too much propaganda, too little science in the mix. If the facts are verified and certain, there is no need to make them out to be more than what they are.


Look around your room. Every single item had to be manufactured. It had to be produced somewhere. It got shipped around 5 times. Every single step from the harvesting of the raw materials to being shipped to your store to coming to your house requires energy and causes by products.

Exactly correct, and this is why carbon credits (energy taxation) will not work. It will raise the price of everything, from food to gasoline to computers to houses to toilet paper. We are in a recession. That means people don't have enough to pay for their needs as it is. How badly do you want people to suffer? Already, every day in this country (which is the wealthiest on the planet at present) people are going hungry. That doesn't mean they can't stop and get a hamburger on their wayhome from work. It means they have nothing to eat.

I know this because at one time I had nothing to eat for a full week. And in order to get something to eat, I had to work on an empty stomach at two jobs so I could get paid and get something to eat. Have you ever gone hungry? Not late for dinner; I am talking about going to work for a solid week with no food, no money in my pocket to buy food, not even a cold drink at the end of a hard day of physical labor. Thank God above for public water fountains!

Until you go through something like this, do not try and tell me that I should be able to do without while you lobby to raise taxes to feather some politician's pocket. I do not want to hear it.

--------------------------------------
reply to post by nixie_nox

I don't think that core samples are the only way to get data. The geological time record gives quite a bit of info too.

The ice core samples are a part of the geological time record. But you are correct that there are other clues. For instance, a layer of volcanic rock tells us the air was probably quite warm from eruptions.

The trick is how to interpret the raw data. Every geological time check contains some assumptions, assumptions we must be very careful to verify. For CO2 levels in ice cores, how much of the CO2 left in the miniature bubbles of atmosphere was released by the water in the process of cooling? How much was absorbed by the water as it froze? How much can a bubble migrate through ice over time? We assume the answer to these questions is "none", but in reality this is an assumption. The end results of the present interpretations may be accurate, but the may not be. Until we can verify every single assumption at least to the level of inconsequence, we do not have the full picture. And without that full picture, it would appear to me to be foolhardy to change the entire economic picture of the planet, to the detriment of every person who is trying to live in a financial quagmire, on a 'maybe'.

Especially when the weatherman has gotten my weather wrong the last 3 out of 7 days.

TheRedneck


[edit on 3/21/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 




just for the record, my post was aimed at rizla - and purely sarcastic

[edit on 2009.3.21 by Long Lance]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainCaveMan
 


are you in the right room? I used to shuffel the 82nd around and push them out the door of C130s. I have never dealt with the SAS but would love to see them in action. I also like the wizzard of oz.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


My apologies. I didn't read good enough.
But thanks for stopping by just the same.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Great to see you again. I hope things are going better than the last time we spoke. Please keep in mind, there will always be friends there to help if you need it, just ask. I could mail you a beer.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
Things are going about the same, but I am learning (re-learning?) what's really important in life. Perhaps I needed a refresher course.


Friends are always good to have, especially when combating ignorance. Think you could pack some ice in with that beer? Don't want global warming to get it.


TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join