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.

 

World’s third largest ice store vanishing!

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Can one of you scientists explain to me the difference between natural global warming and man-made global warming. And in such a way that shows how man is separate from nature?

Last I checked, man is a part of nature and not a separate entity.




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster
actually earth has had higher levels of co2 in the atmosphere before this time. i have alerady posted this. look beyond the last few thousand years at data collected from ice core samples



Sorry, ice core samples are NOT an accurate way to measure the total quantity of CO2 on the entire Earth. It only shows the concentration of CO2 in the region the ice core was taken.

Please don't mix "concentration" and "quantity", they are different things when referring to chemicals. Your data is a measurement of concentration in a region, not all of Earth.

Your data is inaccurate and irrelevant.


Originally posted by wx4caster
co2 is not the only gas that traps heat. the greenhouse effect that you speak of is caused by shortwave solar radiation penetrating the earths atmosphere due to its higher energies, being absorbed by the earth and reemitted as longwave radiation at lower energies. these lower energies are unable to escape through the atmosphere and thus warms the earth as it is circulated back and forth.



Everything you said... I know.

You just proved my point and you don't even realise it.



Originally posted by wx4caster
when a particle of water vapor cools, it warms the surrounding atmosphere. this is a process called latent heat release. you have a dim understanding of energy transfer processes in the atmosphere. evaporative cooling is cause by WARMING water to a vaporous form, which absorbs latent heat from the surrounding atmophere. look it up


I think you confused yourself. Or you just don't know what I was talking about, or you don't know what you are talking about.

When Earths atmosphere is warmed because of greenhouse gases, that will WARM the ice and water. The melting of ice and evaporation of water will then take the warm energy from the surrounding atmosphere and cool it. So global warming will cause some cooling, that was my point.

www.theweatherprediction.com...


When ice melts or water evaporates, energy must be taken from the environment in order for the ice or liquid to move to a less ordered state. Energy is needed to weaken the individual hydrogen bonds between H20 molecules. When water (in any of the three phrases) moves from a higher to a lower ordered state, the air surrounding the H20 will have heat subtracted from it.



Originally posted by wx4caster
silver nitrate was tried as a cloud seeding process in order to weaken tropical storms. we actually found that natural processes are very resiliant after the seeding material was quickly shed from the system. again you are illinformed


No YOU are uninformed.

Insurance companies use chemical sprays in regions that are known to have aggressive hail storms so that they could prevent a hail storm from causing billions of dollars in damages. It works.

China made it rain for the Olympics.

USA made it rain in Vietnam to destroy an enemy convoys ability to pass a certain mudslide vulnerable road.

All of these are REAL examples of how little effort it takes for humans to effect Earths weather and climate.



Originally posted by wx4caster
solar changes are not caused by humans. we have nothing to do with the sun or the amount of radiation that is being emitted by it.


??? I never said anything about humans effecting solar weather.... I just said it is something we have to worry about too. How you could even think I suggested that is beyond understanding.

This proves that you either don't know how to read, or you are taking a too aggressive approach at trying to debunk me and you failed by suggesting I said something that I didn't.


Originally posted by wx4caster
i agree that pollution is a problem. but it is not causing global warming. global warming is a natural process.


So you agree that global warming is real, you think it is natural, but you don't think pollution could HELP it get worse? Even after you said with your own words that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

I don't understand your logic. You know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you know humans are unnaturally creating EXTRA CO2 (pollution), yet you don't think extra greenhouse gases will cause extra global warming. That is not logical at all.



Originally posted by wx4caster
i challenge you to provide some of your own evidence described in your own words that demonstrate to me that you have an understanding of atmospheric processes.


You already failed the challenge and you don't even realise it.

Let me put it in even more simple terms so that even you could understand:

CO2 traps heat. -you admit that

Humans create unnatural CO2 (heat).

1 + 1 = 2

If you don't understand that, I don't even know why you even try to debate.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Is it gone yet ?I've been asleep for almost 6 hours.


Mod Edit- Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by elevatedone]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce

...We have plenty of water where I live. So maybe we can get a little cash back from the Chinese by selling them overpriced lead tainted water.




Making a buck off of other people's misery? Nice, real nice, it's the American dream in action...

"I'm alright Jack, [*SNIP*] you!".

Look, whether or not you agree on what the cause or solution might be, you can't seriously deny something is happening.

 


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/9/2009 by AshleyD]

*edit - I thought I was censoring myself by using ***. Apologies!

[edit on 9/11/09 by sotp]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Correct me if I'm wrong, some time ago sea levels went up and quite a bit of land was lost to the sea, like can be observed in places like india where temples and such have been found at quite a bit of depth.

So the sea levels are rising yet again due to global warming regardless of cause ?

What is the maximum that the sea levels could rise to do you think ?
Also if things are warmer won't there be an increase of the sea evaporating forming clouds ?

For a minute I don't claim to understand any of this but I would like to know why the water would stay in the sky.

Surely if there's more water in the sky then more will fall and if I happen to live in a cold wet place (which I do) then then more rain wouldn't make much difference, after all wet is wet ? the bonus being I could now grow water melons all year round where I used to have to make do with swede.

If 15000 years ago I was picking kiwifruit in moscow then I get never bloody ending ice that would piss me off. But if I'm now to be having an xmas bar b q that's got to be brilliant, arthritis sufferers alone would probably benefit from burning anything that doesn't have a pulse surely ?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
S&F.

So much evidence, so little coverage.

Good work loam.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I'll bite.
So how much CO2 was there before humans and how much is there now?

[Double post. Sorry
edit on 9-11-2009 by The Baby Seal Club]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by The Baby Seal Club]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I'll bite.
So how much CO2 was there before humans and how much is there now?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


did you include volcanic erruptions in your calculations? They have been going on for a while now. I think even before we built the first factory. You need to include all the data, not just the stuff that makes your point.

Loam,

I feel bad that your thread was hijacked so badly. I was interested in the discussion about where the water went to. If the glaciers melted, then the water would have flooded the rivers. It would have been noticed. People would have said something like "hey, I wonder where all this water came from?" then the melting of the glaciers would not have been such a surprise to everyone. None of that changes the fact that the region you are discussing is going to have some very big bad problems very soon. Just saying that they should move to a better area sounds fine until you count how many people are there. I think India has a rather large population. That is something that needs to be looked at very quickly. I think even before we find out who is to blame.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
This thread reminds me of a bunch of 'experts' standing inside a burning building, arguing the cause of the raging fire. Whoever is right about that question doesn't make the flames burn any less hot.


I have to wonder why some of you even bothered to come to this thread? Is it that ATS does not already provide a sufficient number of threads where the discussion of anthropogenic climate change is the central, on-topic theme?

Or is it that so many of you are simply incapable of contributing to ANY discussion of environmental change without reliance upon your paint-by-numbers, sophomoric, binary, political approach to issues more complicated than buttered toast?

This thread's initial post provides three primary 'facts' deserving of most of the discussion:

1) Tibetan Glaciers are disappearing,

2) More than 1 billion people will likely be affected,

3) The global ramifications could be significant.

You will note, none of the above items mention or require a discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of global warming, global warming's natural or anthropogenic causes, global warming's remediation, or the necessity for carbon credits or additional taxes.

Dispute, please, the fact of the ice's disappearance and it's significance to anyone in terms of scale and consequence.

If you can't actually be mature and intelligent in your contributions to this thread, then at least try to fake it.


And if you really feel compelled to discuss the items this thread is NOT about, then U2U me and I'd be glad to point out a few threads where you will feel far more at home and ON-TOPIC.



[edit on 9-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Then you shouldn't have posted and quoted the parts of the article you did,it was misleading and undermined the points you were trying to make.How were we to know your intentions?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 



Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by loam
 


Then you shouldn't have posted and quoted the parts of the article you did,it was misleading and undermined the points you were trying to make.How were we to know your intentions?


Oh, you mean the sentence that mentions "censors"...."communism"...the concepts of 'frankness' and 'openess'...?

My bad.

I hadn't realized my post was too sophisticated or nuanced for the average reader to comprehend.




Given your confusion, I take it your avatar and nic are a bit like medical warning bracelets.


Sincerest apologies.


Now that I've more explicitly pointed things out to you, do you think you could discuss the disappearance of Tibetan glaciers?

[edit on 9-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I've been paying closer attention to global warming lately and I find this thread interesting, albeit, annoying at times.

In particular:



AllisONE

Humans create unnatural CO2 (heat). 1 + 1 = 2 If you don't understand that, I don't even know why you even try to debate.



Well, DUH.. Humans create 'unnatural' CO2. SO WHAT!!!

Let's take a closer look at your little (=2) box:

On the left side of the + we have 'non human caused' CO2.. On the right side of the + we have human caused CO2.

With that in clearly in mind.. what side produces the largest percentage as far as effect? How much CO2 do us crazy humans actually contribute to the big picture?

To sum it up: If the human side of CO2 production is but a small percentage of the cause then why are we so hell bent on focusing on the human side and not the other? (I have a pretty good idea)

To drive the point home even futher, let me cite an analogy: If I have a billion dollar a year budget and a couple of problems arise..1 will cost me 10,000,000 (1% of my yearly budget) and the other will cost me 900 million (90% of my yearly budget).. which one am I going to be mostly concerned about?

Even a child can understand the point I'm trying to make, I hope you can too.

This is not even taking into account the other variables you are leaving out of your little box, in particular average solar output appreciation/depreciation.

ALLforONE, I don't disagree with everything you say here but if you can't understand what I just told you then maybe it's YOU that shouldn't be debating.

Bottom line? As human beings we of course need to be good stewards with the creation but let's get real and put our main focus on where it belongs. Yes, humans are a 'variable' but in the grand scheme of things? Humans are but a SPECK on the radar concerning climate change. Get that through your thick skulls.


Edit for spelling:


[edit on 9-11-2009 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Well if you insist on continuing with the insults,I will respond with the facts;
1;these are your stated points


1) Tibetan Glaciers are disappearing, 2) More than 1 billion people will likely be affected, 3) The global ramifications could be significant. You will note, none of the above items mention or require a discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of global warming

Fact;Not one of those points was mentioned by you in your OP!
fact; what was quoted was


They brought back a visual lesson in global warming

fact;you are assuming you know what I am referring to
fact;I am refering to the fact that I believe our gov.is not above lying to us to further THEIR cause, so I also believe it is not above the scruples of


Chinese state television
to also lie to further their agenda
fact;the entire article you posted is riddled with unconfirmed quotes from a television crew and a communist Chinese "censored"government
fact;this is a conspiracy site.
fact;if you bring that weak "stuff"again I will smack it down again.

question;how do you like your toast?

[edit on 9-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by genius/idoit]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I personally believe mankind is part to blame; however, we are not the only contributor. I think we are witnessing a massive geological change, which naturally occurs on Earth every so many years. Since technology has advanced incredibly over the past 230 years, we are only now able to see these changes in real-time. While mankind has dominated on Earth, we lived through mini-ice ages in the past.

We are now seeing a very BIG geological change, which is similar to what made (mythologically speaking) Atlantis disappear.

While Al Gore and company were preaching about global warming, 'almost' everyone missed a very important geological event. Since it was not covered by the news media, the report was only seen by a smaller audience.

April 2001: Changes in Earth's Orbit Led to Calm Climate Period
www.space.com...

June 2001: Clues to Earth"s Wobble Come from Within
www.space.com...

May 2004: Scientist Seeks Reason Why the Earth Wobbles
www.space.com...

Lady's and Gentlemen. We are living through a major geological change, which mankind is not directly responsible in creating. If my theory and research is correct, there is NOTHING mankind can do about theses changes. Its beyond our technological capability.

Wow! I sound like Jor'El.



[edit on 9-11-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
I personally believe mankind is part to blame; however, we are not the only contributor. I think we are witnessing a massive geological change, which naturally occurs on Earth every so many years. Since technology has advanced incredibly over the past 230 years, we are only now able to see these changes in real-time. While mankind has dominated on Earth, we lived through mini-ice ages in the past.

We are now seeing a very BIG geological change, which is similar to what made (mythologically speaking) Atlantis disappear.

While Al Gore and company were preaching about global warming, 'almost' everyone missed a very important geological event. Since it was not covered by the news media, the report was only seen by a smaller audience.

April 2001: Changes in Earth's Orbit Led to Calm Climate Period
www.space.com...

June 2001: Clues to Earth"s Wobble Come from Within
www.space.com...

May 2004: Scientist Seeks Reason Why the Earth Wobbles
www.space.com...

Lady's and Gentlemen. We are living through a major geological change, which mankind is not directly responsible in creating. If my theory and research is correct, there is NOTHING mankind can do about theses changes. Its beyond our technological capability.





[edit on 9-11-2009 by Pathos]


Thank you Pathos but there is something we can do: We can shift our focus on things that we CAN control like fostering alternative fuels/energy and water sources like evaporative reclamation and water desalinization.


It seems a few people are more interested in penalizing and capitalizing on life and the 'human process'.. pity them.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 



Originally posted by genius/idoit
Well if you insist on continuing with the insults,I will respond with the facts;
1;these are your stated points


1) Tibetan Glaciers are disappearing, 2) More than 1 billion people will likely be affected, 3) The global ramifications could be significant. You will note, none of the above items mention or require a discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of global warming

Fact;Not one of those points was mentioned by you in your OP!




The plateau’s 36,000 glaciers, which once extended for 18,000 square miles, could vanish before mid-century if present rates of warming persist. More than 80% of them are in retreat. The overall area has shrunk by 4.5% in the past 20 years.

Most ominous of all, in the area that Chinese know as Sanjiangyuan, where three mighty rivers rise — the Yangtze, the Yellow and the Mekong — the headwaters run shallow and weak, threatening the water supplies for hundreds of millions of people.




Originally posted by genius/idoit
fact; what was quoted was


They brought back a visual lesson in global warming

fact;you are assuming you know what I am referring to
fact;I am refering to the fact that I believe our gov.is not above lying to us to further THEIR cause, so I also believe it is not above the scruples of


Chinese state television
to also lie to further their agenda
fact;the entire article you posted is riddled with unconfirmed quotes from a television crew and a communist Chinese "censored"government


Post.



..new research published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and a team of researchers traveled to central Himalayas...


Very Chinese indeed.




Originally posted by genius/idoit
fact;this is a conspiracy site.
fact;if you bring that weak "stuff"again I will smack it down again.

question;how do you like your toast?


Can you even identify toast?


*yawn*

[edit on 9-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I see how you work
The article said that I didn't ,Don't use what the article said against me

look it's right there in the article I posted

if you question the facts I'll insult you
if your opinion sounds to logical I will change the facts

I'm done with this and her's your toast

(it's a little used)

[edit on 9-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by genius/idoit]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
More interesting on-topic material:

(Of course, some of it is riddled with political commentary. But they do describe the likely fact of the Tibetan glaciers' disappearance and its likely impact.)











 


reply to post by genius/idoit
 



Originally posted by genius/idoit
I see how you work
The article said that I didn't ,Don't use what the article said against me

look it's right there in the article I posted

if you question the facts I'll insult you
if your opinion sounds to logical I will change the facts

I'm done with this and her's your toast

(it's a little used)





Thank you for breakfast.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Thank you Pathos but there is something we can do: We can shift our focus on things that we CAN control like fostering alternative fuels/energy and water sources like evaporate reclamation and water desalinization.

I'm not sure if you understand what is actually happening. Sure, we can take actions that are more environmentally sound; however, that is not going to solve the real conundrum. Earth is geographically changing due to a natural phenomenon, which occurs once every so many millennium. Unless you know God personally, mankind cannot stop what is happening.

Earth is alive. You cannot stop a living organism from changing. Since we didn't cause the problem in the first place, we cannot control something that is beyond man's comprehension. Unless our society can reach 'type 2' status over night, there is really nothing we can do about the changes.

It would be like trying to stop the sun from going supernova.





[edit on 9-11-2009 by Pathos]



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join