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.

 

Your thoughts on Global warming needed.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The main cause of temperature and weather is...

Cosmic



not earthly/human/tiny/small.

Analogy: The main cause of Beachsand is the Ocean, not the sunbather.

Simple physics and logic dictates that the larger forces determine the smaller forces.

What more is there to say on it? Nothing. But in order to cover up the simplicity of the truth, thousands of stats, graphs and persuasive rhetoric will be employed.


So you're saying earthly is synonymous with human/tiny/small. Yet the Earth is too big to be affected by anything but grand cosmic events? Your own semantics don't even match up.

The fact is, it's not humans by themselves that are altering the environment, it's over 6 BILLION humans using very powerful machines and very potent tools/chemicals/technologies to affect our environment. And the fact that humans emit over a hundred times more CO2 per year than volcanoes, or that solar radiance has DROPPED in the past few decades should make it obvious enough that global warming is not a cosmic event but a self-contained one spawned by the most powerful species ever to exist on this planet.

Keep in mind, large forces are the amalgamation of many smaller forces/parts. And as a civilization we are collectively an extremely large force on the ecosystems of this planet. Hell, even non-radical scientists are calling the current era Earth's 6th Great Extinction Event, and what's it caused by? Human destruction/depletion of the environment. We ARE a large force, especially on a small, relatively fragile planet such as ours.




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Pictures speak louder than words. This is the size of the sun compared to earth (and we havent even gotten to the size of the solar-system yet):




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deep-Throat
I'm European and I think it's mostly BS, as expat2368 said the Sun drives the weather on the earth. The whole solar system is getting warmer from what I've read.

But for that matter it wouldn't hurt us to stop using fossil fuels, that's just common sense. I also think overpopulation is total BS Jim Marrs said in an interview he had talked with a scientist who said the total amount of people on the earth could fit into Texas and live quite comfortably.


The sun is central to the climate/weather on Earth, but there are other factors (like greenhouse gases) which can decrease or amplify the effects of the sun. If all the CO2 were removed from our atmosphere, the Earth would be 60 degrees colder than now. Also, the entire solar system is NOT warming. Some planets/moons are currently warming, but some are also cooling as well. And the ones that are warming can be explained by their own natural cycles and not some kind of solar out put. Like I stated in my last response, solar radiance and sunspots have DECREASED over the past few decades and the past decade respectively. There is no evidence that global warming is driven by solar output, and there is very weak evidence that cosmic radiation is a factor. The overwhelmingly glaring cause for the rapid warming over the past century is the proportional increase in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Pictures speak louder than words. This is the size of the sun compared to earth (and we havent even gotten to the size of the solar-system yet):






You're absolutely over-simplifying the science of things.

Keep in mind, when sat next to each other, the sun dwarfs the Earth thousands of times over. However, they are NOT right next to each other, they're 93 MILLION MILES APART. That's quite a considerable distance that dwarfs the size of either the sun or Earth.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


The sun is that far away, but the Cosmos is all around.


Complicating things is done only for the purpose of manipulation.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


The sun is that far away, but the Cosmos is all around.


Complicating things is done only for the purpose of manipulation.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Skyfloating]


The cosmos is all around? Ok... that doesn't really apply to this conversation though. I was talking about cosmic radiation, and yes it's all around, but the amount of it differs from place to place in the universe, and within our solar system there's not enough of it to affect our climate in any substantial way.

Compared to our human comprehension, the universe IS complicated and can't be explained easily. This doesn't mean the universe isn't elegant and simple in its own way, but compared to human ability to describe it in words, it seems very complex.

I'm not over-complicating things, I'm merely stating facts. And I've been pretty brief, actually. Not everything in our world can be explained quickly, simply, and succinctly. If you value simplicity, then you must also value patience, even the philosopher or monk knows that the gaining of universal knowledge takes more than a lifetime. You can't know the universe and its parts by making over-simplified statements or coming to vague going-with-your-gut conclusions on it.

Over simplification can just as easily be used to manipulate as complication. The root of manipulation, however, is neither simplification nor complication but lies and misdirection. I am neither lying or misdirecting. I seek ultimate truth. The amount of rational/strong evidence for man-made global warming makes it quite simple for me to know that we as a species are causing it.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


The cosmos/natural-forces/troposphere-events do not effect our climate in any way? Thats strange. Where do climate and weather come from then


[edit on 20-12-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


The cosmos/natural-forces/troposphere-events do not effect our climate in any way? Thats strange. Where do climate and weather come from then


[edit on 20-12-2009 by Skyfloating]


I didn't mention natural forces or troposphere events. I also didn't say they don't affect our climate in any way. You're putting false words in my mouth (talk about manipulation).

Many things affect our climate, including the cosmos (to a certain extent), the sun, the troposphere, and other natural forces. Duh. If you read what I said closely though, you'd see that I pointed out that there is no evidence that cosmic radiation (whether from the sun or elsewhere) is causing our current global warming.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
If the Polar ice caps are melting so fast, why did the Russians have to send an icebreaker to rescue a ship that was studying the melting of said ice cap?

Your largest greenhouse gas is water vapor. Compared to water vapor CO2 is nothing. All Al Gore did was use his position as Vice President to obtain a key position in the Carbon scam. Remember, as VP Gore was the head of NASA and the National Science Foundation and was in a position to control how research funds were spent.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If the Polar ice caps are melting so fast, why did the Russians have to send an icebreaker to rescue a ship that was studying the melting of said ice cap?

Your largest greenhouse gas is water vapor. Compared to water vapor CO2 is nothing. All Al Gore did was use his position as Vice President to obtain a key position in the Carbon scam. Remember, as VP Gore was the head of NASA and the National Science Foundation and was in a position to control how research funds were spent.



The stuck icebreaker you're referring to is The Captain Khlebnikov. First of all, global warming denier blogs claim that the ship got stuck in the Northwest Passage (which has seen record melting recently) at the North Pole, however, that's actually dead wrong. The ship ACTUALLY got stuck in Antarctica... which is at the SOUTH pole. So the truth is quite literally the polar opposite of the denier claims. Second of all, just because an icebreaker gets stuck... doesn't mean that global warming is a hoax. If you look at the real reasons why it got stuck, it was because of a lack of strong enough winds to help move the ice chunks. For all you know, this ship could have gotten further than it should have for that time of year and simply struck an impasse. This event, by no means, provides an argument against AGW.

Water vapor is misunderstood as a greenhouse gas. It is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect on this planet, yes, however its cycle within the atmosphere is very rapid and decays (precipitates) quickly. Also, water vapor is not evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, it is concentrated more in certain areas than others. CO2 on the other hand is more/less evenly distributed, and takes much longer than water vapor to be cleaned from the atmosphere. At the rate we're pumping it out, it is increasing much more rapidly than it is being scrubbed from the atmosphere by natural carbon sinks. Keep in mind, there are various positive feedback effects associated with global warming as well. So, as the Earth warms due to CO2, more water vapor is created as a result, thus contributing even more to a greenhouse effect. This can also be applied to the melting of perma-frost due to AGW and its release of yet MORE methane/CO2.

Al Gore didn't have as much control over research as you assume. Also, you don't hear any scientists coming out and saying Al Gore forced them to manipulate data to create a fake global warming hoax. Actually the opposite is true, you hear of quite many scientists who were pissed at the BUSH administration for forcing scientists to water-down and suppress data on global warming. This is of course because most of Bush and his admin had direct links, esp financial, to fossil fuel industries who lobby/disinform intensely against AGW.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
I didn't mention natural forces or troposphere events.


Troposphere, Natural-Events, Cosmos etc - they are all different words for the very same thing: The source/cause of Weather.

In school you learn how whether and temperature are caused, how they come about. I dont know and remember much about it, but Im sure they didnt teach that weather is generally man-made.

Over the last few millions of years there were times it was too cold on earth for humans to live and times it waas too hot for humans to live - as a consequence of natural/cosmic events.

Let me know which part of this you dont understand.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
I didn't mention natural forces or troposphere events.


Troposphere, Natural-Events, Cosmos etc - they are all different words for the very same thing: The source/cause of Weather.

In school you learn how whether and temperature are caused, how they come about. I dont know and remember much about it, but Im sure they didnt teach that weather is generally man-made.

Over the last few millions of years there were times it was too cold on earth for humans to live and times it waas too hot for humans to live - as a consequence of natural/cosmic events.

Let me know which part of this you dont understand.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Skyfloating]


Alright, I don't know how you got 2 stars for that


But you're not showing much knowledge of the issue. This is further proven by your reference to climate as "weather". However in the scientific community, weather and climate are two SEPARATE things. Weather is localized, fast, erratic, and short-lived. Whereas climate is long-term, cyclical, and more easily predicted.

Nobody ever said humans control all the weather (but sadly that doesn't stop us from trying). The contention of global warming is NOT that humans have controlled all the weather/climate for the Earth's history. I don't know where the heck you're coming up with this stuff! The contention is that humans are contributing to a greenhouse effect, which in turn raises global temperatures and causes environmental instability, which threatens crops, species, and ecosystems. That's not a good thing.

As for your whole "it was too hot/cold for millions of years for humans to live" theory, I don't think you know quite what you're referring to. But regardless, humans have only evolved for 4 million years. And anatomically MODERN humans have only been around about 100-200 thousand years. So... your time-scales are a bit off. Yeah, I don't even know why I'm still arguing with you, to be quite honest,
...



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
global warming is real, but on hiatus due to lack of sunspots.
global warming is good, more moisture in air, means more rain.
more co2 in air is good, plant growth will be greater.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigspud
global warming is real, but on hiatus due to lack of sunspots.
global warming is good, more moisture in air, means more rain.
more co2 in air is good, plant growth will be greater.


No.

Global warming is not on hiatus. The ten hottest years on record have all been within the past 12 years. Sunspots have not been linked to global warming. In fact, solar radiance has dropped over the past few decades, yet warming has increased proportional to CO2 output.

Global warming is not good. It will have many detrimental effects, and not just "more moisture and rain". More CO2 in the air may have limited beneficial effects on plant growth, but the negative effects of warming far outweigh any meager benefits.

Watch this:



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

If Global Warming was actually happening, what would be so bad about that? Humans thrive in warmer temperatures.



Disease spreads in warmer temperatures. Sea levels rise- as the temperature increases the ocean "expands"; that would obviously be even more devastating for places like Southeast Asia that already are getting pounded with storms/tsunamis, especially since they're losing mangroves, forest, etc.

I think global warming exists and is partially man-made, although there are many other factors contributing to it. However I do think it has just turned into a money making scheme.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
you're not showing much knowledge of the issue




I don't know how you got 2 stars for that




I don't know where the heck you're coming up with this stuff




I don't think you know quite what you're referring to




I don't even know why I'm still arguing with you, to be quite honest,
...


Quite a lot that you dont know, it appears.


[edit on 21-12-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Wow, what a "lively" debate.

I have actually been pondering this issue lately, as have many of us, of course, and realized a couple of things that made me go "hmmm." Please comment if you have relevant information. It's hard to find reputable science these days, so these things have the benefit of not needing scientific verification, as they refer to easily-observed or commonplace occurrences.

A: Wouldn't loads of fresh water suddenly (over a period of years or decades) infusing the water system of the world help to dilute many toxins we already know are in the water we drink? Plus we don't have to pay a dime, since it's already happening and no one can stop it.

B: Galapagos. Arctic penguins live there, and quite happily. Polar bears live in zoos far from Arctic regions. Why would they be in so much danger if there were changes in the length of the warm season in Arctic regions? There would seem to be an increased population in the works, at least at first. The warmer seasons would continue in the warming trend, correct? My point is that the Tropics are not bereft of life, even life originating in colder climates. Are there other kinds of dangers to them? Yes. Different diseases, insects, fungi? Yes. But are these Arctic natives thriving? Definitely.

C. Large forests being destroyed by warm weather insects. Wouldn't different trees need to be planted in anticipation of the changing climate? Wouldn't the plants change anyway to suit these conditions? And couldn't we determine and plant large forests of better-suited trees during this die-off? Tougher plants and trees would help the land adapt, and we wouldn't have to lose huge forests before we started over.

Thoughts or info on any of this?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
It's funny how the believers in GW call it a gray area where we still need to do more research, whereas people who say GW isn't real (or not as important as Al Gore would have you think) present us facts and their own years in the works research.

It's like an article I read about Microwaves and Cancer. It's really easy for a short paragraph to scare you away from microwaves, but hard for a long essay to tell you why Microwave ovens aren't going to cause Cancer.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
do humans have influence on climate change? NO - our co2 (wich is good gas) emissions are very small compared to natural ones (water vapor , volcanos etc.)

do humans have impact on ENVIROMENT? YES - deforestation , over-hunting , over-fishing etc. these are the things we should focus on not the stupid ideas about co2 or methane from farting ... its just silly to belive that this taxation would change something.

as for global warming as an marketing tool well look for your self .. green this green that

its like in avatar movie - its not that humans came and build a factory wich made a "global warming" on pandora its the fact they rip the planet apart w/o any consideration about its natural life.

simmilar is here on earth.
if we cut down all trees then well we will all sufficate in time.
Imagine that trees were having a cop15 of thier own lol and trying to tax oxygen emissions becose its "poison" its that simple.

sorry for wall of text but i just cant stand how people get fooled like this.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I've got one for you NoHierarchy... Why then during the 1940's we didn't have global warming? Industry was at it's strongest and safety measures were not on the plate? The WWII industrial boom should have really hit the enviroment, yet the evidence doesn't exist. Ohh I got it cuz global warming was not invented yet!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join