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.

 

Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

page: 15
29
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


AGW was predicted 150 years ago (horse and carriage days) before we even had CO2 problems.... the reason it is still an issue today is because it has with stood 150 years of debate, and hasn't been disproven EVER. I doubt it ever will be too, because its common sense.

No atmosphere (greenhouse gases) = cold

More atmosphere (greenhouse gases) = warm





posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   


AGW was predicted 150 years ago (horse and carriage days) before we even had CO2 problems.... the reason it is still an issue today is because it has with stood 150 years of debate, and hasn't been disproven EVER. I doubt it ever will be too, because its common sense.

No atmosphere (greenhouse gases) = cold

More atmosphere (greenhouse gases) = warm


Ah.. one dimensional thinking. Adding greenhouse gases could have no other possible effect right? I would recommend looking at the CO2 and temperature plots from the Vostok ice cores. I think perhaps it will shed some light on your flawed theory. It clearly shows that CO2 levels can increase while temperatures decrease. In fact the data clearly shows this happens often. The data shows that temperature changes take place in advance of CO2 level changes.

People don't be fooled either by this CO2 scare. This gas makes up 0.03% of our atmosphere. Our contribution to that 0.03% is small as well. Even if we were to match what nature produces the number is still so small that it has little or no impact on the climate. I think if you exercised a little common sense you'd find many ways in which temperature changes could change CO2 levels. Doesn't take much imagination or a rigged computer model to figure it out.

For over 1000 years it was a scientific consensus that matter could be divided indefinitely and you'd still have the same matter just smaller. Of course that long standing consensus was flushed down the toilet. Much like the idea what man is causing climate change will be as well. One day people will look back on this and call us foolish much like we look back at the people who once thought the solar system revolved around the earth or that thought the earth was flat.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE


No atmosphere (greenhouse gases) = cold

More atmosphere (greenhouse gases) = warm




just one question, you should answer, at least mentally for yourself:

how hot or cold, do you think, are geostationary satellites or space probes orbiting at roughly the same distance from the sun as the Earth?


each and every of these apodictic statements, like the one about the greenhouse effect on Earth have one thing in common, namely we can't possibly verify them. coincidence?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
If you all wouldn't mind I'd like to ask a couple of questions.


Why is it that the single biggest green house gas (water vapour) is never mentioned as an significant contributor to GW / CC?

I was under the impression that the ice core samples demonstrated that CO2 levels have in the past been up in the thousands of parts per million - was that incorrect?

I was also under the impression that the planet has gone through many cycles - some being significantly warmer and colder than present day...is this correct?

Now the out in left field question - assuming we are realigning with the galactic center, is it possible this might be affecting our solar system in terms of additional radiation hitting our planet?

Are the claims made by Lord Monckton in this video incorrect?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 



Earths weather is easily modified. Within the videos above is an example of weather changes made after 9-11. When the jets were grounded for 3 days after 9-11, our Earth made some interesting weather changes that have been linked to the contrails that jets make. It shows that jets alone have an effect on the weather. Imagine what else we do that effects our weather. Like the billions of vehicles for example.

Why are you being so general on the effects of the grounding of the aircraft?

You appear to clearly be on the pro side, so why are you there saying that the skeptics alter data etc... then fail to provide any yourself?

What happened to temperature in the US is widely known. The temperature INCREASED ~1.0 °C.

WHy were you so afraid to state that in your post?

I have noticed that the pro camp shy away from hard data time and time again, resorting instead to personal attacks, or obfuscation of the facts.

www.pbs.org...


NARRATOR: September 12th, 2001, the aftermath of tragedy: ironically, as America mourned, the weather all over the country was unusually clear and sunny. Eight hundred miles west of New York, in Madison, Wisconsin, climate scientist David Travis was on his way to work.

DOCTOR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin-Whitewater): Around the 12th, later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was, and...at first I didn't think about it, then I realized the sky was unusually clear.

NARRATOR: For 15 years, Travis had been researching a relatively obscure topic: whether the vapor trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the weather. In the aftermath of 9/11, the entire U.S. fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this—an opportunity to do research—that hopefully will never happen again.

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small, but detectable, change to the weather, but what he observed was both immediate and dramatic.

DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degree centigrade. And you have to realize that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.


archives.cnn.com...


During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.



whether the jet clouds have a net effect on global warming remains unknown.


They are equally obfuscating the facts by talking about variation, but they don't make clear which temperature changed, or in which direction.

www.sciencedaily.com...


Carleton, and Dr. David Travis, climatologist at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and Ryan Lauritsen, then an undergraduate at UW-W, looked at high and low temperatures recorded throughout the country during the three days of commercial air shutdown and at satellite photos taken during that time. The satellite photos show where contrails were occurring, mostly absent over the U.S. between Sept 11-14, but still occurring in Canada and northern Mexico.

"We show that there was an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range for the period Sept. 11-14, 2001," the researchers reported in today's (Aug. 8) issue of the journal Nature. "Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails."

The diurnal temperature range is the difference between the nighttime low temperature and the daytime high temperature, usually for a given day.

"Because the shutdown occurred before noon on Sept. 11, the low temperature had already been reached, so we looked at 24-hour periods beginning with the high on Sept. 11 to the low on Sept. 14," said Carleton.

The change in the temperature difference was plus 1.1 degree Celsius, equal to plus 2 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 30-year long-term mean diurnal temperature range.


That may be so (and notice they throw the word "diurnal" to sound more authoritive and to confuse less well-educated readers), but we still have not yet had the answer to the question of which temperature went which way?

Why are they so afraid of discussing hard data? Why skip around the issue, and try and confuse people with pseudo-science?

I see this all too often when reading anything on climate. They are always afraid to mention the hard data.

www.pbs.org...


Travis's team discovered that from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit.

So we can say from this that the effect is neutral?

With contrails, it is COOLER in the day, and WARMER at night. Is this so bad?

Take this for example:

Pre 9/11: DAY: 22°, NIGHT: 14° - Average: 18°
During the grounding: DAY: 22.5°, NIGHT: 13.5° - Average: 18°

Average temp is the same if we presume the same rate of warming/cooling.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
See the image here:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

i.dailymail.co.uk...

The sphere represents 1 ton of CO2 (allegedly). I will now debunk this.

Density of CO2 at STP is 1.98 kg/m^3

1 ton = 1000 kg.

1 ton of CO2 occupies:

1000 / 1.98 = 505.05 m^3.

I'm going to grossly over-estimate the size of the sphere in the photo.

First, I am going to assume the guy is 2.0 m tall. Next, I'm going to be generous and assume he can lay 5x across the diameter of the sphere.

Radius of the sphere = 5 m.

Volume of a sphere = 4/3 · pi · r^2

= 4/3 · pi · 5^2

= 104 m^3.


It is approximately 1/5 of the size it needs to be.

This is important as it affects the energy density, and associated properties of the gas. It also gives people a distorted view of what CO2 would look like if we could see it.

It would therefore be more accurate to say that baloon only represents 200 kg.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by audas

I am still waiting for a single - thats right - ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE from a scientist in a peer reviewed journal, that has not been debunked, which disproves AGW.

Not possible, by definition.

The debate has been couched in such terminology as to make dissention impossible. For instance, take the calculations I published. Yes, there have been concerns raised about them, but so far every single concern has been addressed save one: radiative forcing. My assumptions, in the absence of hard data on the actual effects of such, were that 100% of all energy in proportion to the amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide would be absorbed, and that all of it would be turned directly into conductive heat. In other words, if a ray of sunlight intercepted a molecule of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, then that energy would be absorbed and never re-emitted. Now, apparently some people believe that more than 100% of energy can be converted into heat, and at this time I cannot mathematically disprove that; it takes time to track down precise hard data amid the maze of misinformation that exists. That doesn't mean it can't be disproven, mind you. It simply means that it takes time.

If there is a miscalculation, then the proper way to refute it would be to provide the correct numbers. Yet that has not been done. Not once.

So, to ALLisONE, I repeat a challenge I made in another thread, one that he has apparently either missed or ignored: so far everything you have stated is indicative of qualitative analysis; show us your quantitative analysis. Show us how much energy carbon dioxide levels absorb. Show us how much energy is being trapped by 380 ppmv of carbon dioxide as opposed to 280 ppmv. Show us how much that energy will raise the temperature of the planet. Show us the numbers.

In poker, one does not lose until all the cards are shown, or until all the other players have folded. I have not folded. You say you have called my bluff. Now, I'll be happy to concede defeat if you can defeat my calcs. I will not fold; you have been called. Show your hand. Show your numbers.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I survived global warming!

I just made it to Denver Colorado, I was stuck for several hours yesterday, and last night, on a highway, in below zero bitter cold, snowy weather in KANSAS... Waiting for 15 FOOT snow drifts to be cleared, the standard snow plows couldn't move it.... This morning where I was the actual temperature was 16 below, wind chill was 28 below... I had to keep my engine running through the night or die!

According to the local radio report that temp broke the record for cold on that date by several degrees, and that record was 6 below recorded in 1913.

I'm tellin y'all this global warming is extremely dangerous.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ATS23
 





If you all wouldn't mind I'd like to ask a couple of questions.


Why would we mind? Have you searched for the answers and found that they have already been answered many times, so you have to ask them one more time to see if you can get a different answer? Yeah, we might mind then. Have you asked them before and didn't like the answer? Yeah, we might mind then. Have you asked them before and don't care if you got an answer, you just want to keep on asking them to be a PITA? Yeah, we might mind then.

But if you really want to know the answers, don't apologize for asking. The only thing worse than ignoring an answer is not asking the question in the first place.



Why is it that the single biggest green house gas (water vapour) is never mentioned as an significant contributor to GW / CC?


It is. If there was no water vapour in the atmosphere, the Earth would be an ice ball.

But it is not a factor in HUMAN caused GW / CC because man cannot influence the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, because any 'extra' water vapour injected into the atmosphere comes out again as rain (or snow, etc) generally within two to three weeks. Of course, warming the atmosphere by other means can raise the dew point multiplying the green house effect and intensifying the feedback cycle. But the water vapour in the atmosphere balance that exists now is unchanged pretty much for the last 10,000 years or so and there is no evidence that it is changing now.



I was under the impression that the ice core samples demonstrated that CO2 levels have in the past been up in the thousands of parts per million - was that incorrect?


Certainly not in the last million years.





I was also under the impression that the planet has gone through many cycles - some being significantly warmer and colder than present day...is this correct?


Sure. Cycles that played out on time scales over 10's of thousands of years, 100's of thousands of years, even millions of years. But there is no evidence whatsoever that any change this significant has ever occurred on time scales as short as a few decades as we are seeing now.

With the likely exception of the "asteroid winter" that would have been caused by a large asteroid hitting the Earth, of course.



Now the out in left field question - assuming we are realigning with the galactic center, is it possible this might be affecting our solar system in terms of additional radiation hitting our planet?


Define "realigning with the galactic center". We are always in the exact same alignment with the galactic center, by my reckoning. The galactic center is ALWAYS in the middle of the galaxy, isn't it?



Are the claims made by Lord Monckton in this video incorrect? www.youtube.com...


Yes, they are incorrect.

OK, maybe not every sentence, but his message is absolutely incorrect. It is perhaps too strong to call Monckton a fraud, but he is purposefully misleading in much that he does.

Here is just one example of his misinformation, and bad science reporting: Monckton's deliberate manipulation

If you take the time to read that link you will see something very obvious that points to his character and the degree he will go to mislead. Since Lord Monckton goes to great lengths to encourage audience participation to point out something trivial about an artists mistake on the cover of Gore's book (the design of the cover is not the content of the message), I'll leave it to you to read the article and find the absurdities in his graph (which are indeed the crux of his message).



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 





The sphere represents 1 ton of CO2 (allegedly). I will now debunk this.


'represents' is not the same as 'is'. But I'll grant that the implication is that it supposed to contain a ton of CO2.



Density of CO2 at STP is 1.98 kg/m^3


But the balloon is obviously not at STP. It is clearly at significantly higher pressure than the atmosphere surrounding it.



1 ton = 1000 kg.


Incorrect.

1 ton = 907.184 74 kilograms.

1 tonne = 1000 kilograms



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa

Define "realigning with the galactic center". We are always in the exact same alignment with the galactic center, by my reckoning. The galactic center is ALWAYS in the middle of the galaxy, isn't it?

Actually, no, in the sense that the poster is mentioning, we are indeed aligning with the galactic center. The Milky Way galaxy is not a sphere, but rather a more or less flat spiral. The orbit of our solar system around this spiral is not perfectly centered with the plane of that spiral, but instead moves 'up and down' in relation to the central plane of the Milky Way Galaxy. On December 21, 2012, our sun will exactly cross this central plane of the galaxy. That occurrence is commonly referred to as "alignment with the galactic center".

I have no idea what this will mean when it happens; nor do I know how it may or may not relate to climate changes. I only post this for clarification.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
thanks Redneck...I used the wrong term, I should have said the Galactic plane

And thanks for taking the time to answer my questions rnaa



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ATS23
 




thanks Redneck...I used the wrong term, I should have said the Galactic plane

And thanks for taking the time to answer my questions rnaa


OK, I think I follow. I'll attempt a 'seat of the pants' analysis of the situation. I could be wrong, but this reasoning seems pretty straightforward to me.

It occurs to me that the plane of the Galaxy would contain more of the matter of the Galaxy than is outside the plane.

Some of this matter, likes stars and whatnot, radiates. But more, they radiate in all directions, not just in the Galactic plane. OK, yes, individual objects may well radiate in planes or jets or whatever, but the overall 'average' should be roughly equal in all directions. Why would there be a preference for the Galactic plane? (I find this the weakest part of my analysis, but I think it is right).

Some of this matter, perhaps the great majority of it, does not radiate, and in fact blocks radiation.

So when we are outside the Galactic Plane the radiation that reaches the solar system has to pass less mass than if we were in the Galactic Plane. That would mean that the solar system is currently exposed to more radiation than when we are 'aligned' with the Galactic Plane, simply because there will be more mass between us and the source.

What has this to do with Global Warming? Not really anything as far as I can tell.

There is a postulate that more cosmic rays will mean more clouds which will increase the planet's albedo and helping to cool the planet, thus the emphasis by some that its all the Suns fault for blocking too many cosmic rays at the moment (except that the Sun's magnetosphere is currently at a minimum). The jury is still out on this one, correlations between cosmic rays and clouds are found at some latitudes and not others, many variables are changing at the same time as the solar related ones and it is hard to separate the various influences.

But alignment with the Galactic Plane or non-alignment with the Galactic Plane, the Sun is the far and away the major regulator of how much cosmic radiation we get to see. And for the reasons stated above, I can't see how alignment is going to deliver more cosmic radiation.

edit: cleaned up grammar


[edit on 10/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa

What has this to do with Global Warming? Not really anything as far as I can tell.

I would tend to agree with you on this... at this time anyway.

I'm not going to say that some mechanism does not exist to increase the temperature of matter itself along the plane of the galaxy... I will say if it does, we have no evidence of it.

I just really wanted to agree with someone on something right now.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by rnaa

What has this to do with Global Warming? Not really anything as far as I can tell.

I would tend to agree with you on this... at this time anyway.

I'm not going to say that some mechanism does not exist to increase the temperature of matter itself along the plane of the galaxy... I will say if it does, we have no evidence of it.

I just really wanted to agree with someone on something right now.


TheRedneck


lol, yeah I feel ya on that at least, Redneck.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
To rnaa:

This was the graph I was speaking of...I do not know it's source or it's accuracy.

Are you or anyone else familiar with it?




(edit: for some reason the temperature numbers on the right side were cropped but they read 22 / 17 / 12 from top to bottom)

[edit on 11-12-2009 by ATS23]

[edit on 11-12-2009 by ATS23]

[edit on 11-12-2009 by ATS23]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATS23
To rnaa:

This was the graph I was speaking of...I do not know it's source or it's accuracy.

Are you or anyone else familiar with it?




(edit: for some reason the temperature numbers on the right side were cropped but they read 22 / 17 / 12 from top to bottom)



I don't have any particular problem with it, but I am not competent to explain it in much detail.

Notice my earlier answer only covered back over the last million years (or so) and this graph does not dispute that.

The earth was a very different place 100, 200, 300 millions years ago. There was only one continent during the carboniferous age, Gondwanaland. This is the period, as I understand it, when much of the atmospheric CO2 got 'sequestered' as coal and oil.

That coal and oil took several hundred million years to sequester, and man is putting it back in a few hundred years. That is quite a shock to the balance of nature.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I think the interesting point that this graph shows is a relatively constant temperature despite extremely high levels of CO2 which one could attribute to the planet's ability to regulate it's temperature despite these high CO2 levels.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I don't think you've debunked anything here..Matter of fact if anything you've only persuaded me to think more that Global Warming is a fraud. CO2 is what we exhale- its a contradiction. Oxygen is fine but CO2 is dangerous...? Ridiculous. For them to label CO2 as a dangerous gas is enough right there for me to say "No Thanks" to the whole Global Warming idea. CO2 is something plants and humans produce.

Rather than examine the data to see if speculation is probability- "Climate-lovers" would rather skip all signs of rationality and move straight into making laws and caps without even looking accurately at the data (which we can't even depict as actual real data considering the e-mail scam still has yet to be debunked as you didn't debunk them at all OP, nor anyone else). We're all open for discussion but why should we move into laws already?? Where's the real hard evidence? There is none. Everything is speculation and theories and graphs/charts. We can't even get solid data from people studying it. Hacked e-mails or not- there's something fishy going on. And how convenient that there's a Copenhagen summit for climate change as well.

We're going to spend all this money going green and using different types of electric-based machinery which in turn will what...Cause more people to use more power to power their electric cars or vehicles. How exactly is using electricity from coal powered power plant going to improve the enviroment? Like Recycling...which uses more power than you'd use if you just threw out your trash instead.

Cap and trade will bankrupt us further...People will have their electric bills raised significantly, less money for food and clothing, less heat during winter. This is a dangerous road to sacrifice some b.s. science for survival. The middle-class will struggle and the low-class will suffer immensely, only furthering the fact that they won't escape poverty. So we'll let some people die so that we can all go green. The only people actually seeing anything from all this "going green" are politicians and corporations who have a stake in this and something to gain either financially or politically. This is all a mind game.


It's disturbing how many people actually believe Global Warming is as bad as they say it is. It is a gigantic fraud and it's disgusting how much it has just exploded in the last few years thanks to politicians who only see dollar signs, not improvements for the problem. I do agree that its possible we may be doing some form of harm to the planet but not nearly as bad as the "Day after tomorrow" scenario that these climate scientists love talking about. Its not an emergency- much like healthcare. This is just an excuse for new taxes and I use the term taxes lightly as its more like someone bankrupting you like you couldn't have imagined.

We had Global Cooling a few decades ago...and they were worried...Now we have Global Warming and they are freaking out. Whats next? Global Neutrality?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AceOfAces
 


I don't know what is worse, your lack of knowledge, or the lack of knowledge of people who stared your post.

Humans and plants make very very little CO2. The problem is our machiens make billions of tonnes of CO2, and it really has nowhere to go. Humans and plants and the ocean can't keep up with our machines, especially because we are making more and more cars every year, and more and more drivers appear every year, and more and more of everything every year...

Unless we increase plants, or increase the oceans ability, we will be producing more CO2 than the Earth can handle. We are actually doing that now, creating more CO2 than Earth can handle. Soon in the future, if we don't minimize our CO2 emissions, We will be producing double of what the Earth can absorb and we will be out of luck. Millions of bad things can happen. Global Warming caused by a thicker atmopshere is only one of many problems.

Ever herd of hyperventilation? If you breath too fast, you reduce the CO2 in your blood, and raise your pH levels to alkaline. Now what do you think the opposite of that would be? Too much CO2 in your blood? It would lower your pH levels and you would have acidosis. That is not fun...

pH levels are very important for ALL LIFE. If you doing maintain pH levels in a fish tank, all the fish die. If you don't maintain pH levels for plants, plants die. If you don't maintain pH levels of the human bodie, the human bodie pretty much deteriorates faster.

Have you not ever herd the saying "to much of anything is bad for you?".... well that includes CO2.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas that keeps Earth from freezing, and too much of it would heat up Earth. It's proven logic. There is no debate about it...

The only debate right now is HOW MUCH CO2 can the Earth handle? It doesn't matter when we know right now that we are creating more and more every year. We know if we don't stop in the future or reduce emissions now, we will hit the max, and pass the max amount of CO2 Earth can handle. Most believe we already have passed the max...

The problem with deniers is they don't grasp the amount of CO2 we are making with our machines. They think Earth is too big compared to the amount we are making... but that is not true at all..

CO2 is a real issue. It has been real for 150+ years now.



new topics




 
29
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join