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.

 

Gore at climate talks: Polar ice may go in 5 years

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
GW bottom line..

Global Warming a lot like playing Russian Roulet with a gun thats really far away..

Sure the bullet might not hit you, and for all you know that gun not even loaded... BUT... Are you willing to pull the trigger? Really?




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


Sorry I have disappointed you with my post. You see, it is my opinion. I cannot give you scientific qualifications. I just play the issues the way I see them.

Do you believe we can buy our way to a man made climate utopia?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


I believe we have to try anything we can, and anything we try better then what we have been doing over the years... All we have to do is look around to see what we have done to the planet and ourselves, Will it stop everything? Doubt it.. Will it slow things down and curb them? Yup, it sure will.. Will we and our kids and our grandchildren have a better world if we try? Yup, they will.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


So how many carbon credits have you purchased to curb your own carbon footprint on this fragile planet?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


None, i dont drive, i recycle etc.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


Well that certainly is commendable. Here is where you can learn about your own carbon foot print on this delicate planet.


An individual’s carbon footprint is the direct effect their actions have on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. In general, the biggest contributors to the carbon footprints of individuals in industrialized nations are transportation and household electricity use. An individual's secondary carbon footprint is dominated by their diet, clothes, and personal products (Figure 3).


www.eoearth.org...

Now all I have to do is find out how much I have to pay to heal the damage I've already done and to take care of future damage I may create. Who do I pay for this reckless life style I am leading?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
Everything the energy industry has funded? Really, its pretty simple.. Follow the money and who has the most to lose/gain.. It def not the GW supporters.

Only in America and China and Russia do you see this attitude.


Actually it is the GW supporters. The ones with the most to gain are the third world countries. If the world goes to this Cap and Trade system, these countries will be allotted a certain amount of CO2 production credits. With little or no industrial capacity, they will be able to sell their excess credits on the world market. As you said, follow the money.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


How about pay no one and stop living reckless XD lol Unless ofcourse you want to invest in alternatives.. I'd recomend wind energy if you live in the right state.. Texas, Oklahoma etc.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


Yeah, I agree. I'll pay no one for man made climate change claims. Even if it comes in the form of a tax. Even if it comes in the form of a deduction from my pay check.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I think Global Warming at the poles are from the free energy UFO
bases of the ETs.
They have been forced to live at the poles as they were driven out
of Germany at the end of WWII.
OR
We have neglected to bring down the world ruling oil companies.
The carbon pervaiors just want controls and care less if GW is
man made or nature made. After all the active volcano must send
enough carbon in the air for a century of mans activity and have
the most effect on the poles.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
some part of me thinks this scam is there only for getting money to a multinational secret program like the stargate program.. they currently use money from the budgets for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and those wars are coming to an end .. If so they might have a secret program which cost al lot of money.. but I might have watched to much stargate sg1 ect for believing the money for this climate scam is secretly put into building secret space battleships like on that serie.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
One good belch and this thing can emit more greenhouse gasses in an hour than the world can in a week.

Residents flee as Philippines volcano threatens to erupt



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


I posted a picture today with a diagram with highs and lows.. and after eruptions of vulcano's like Etna ect and more recently around 1998 there was a sudden drop of temperature due to erupotions.
There are climat sceptics who believe the global warming trends is allready going down wards.. and that is due to the lack of solar activaty and in the past the vulcano eroptions made it even worse .. it could lead too a small ice age.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Still going to keep living wasteful and not pay to clean it up.. Sound logic you got there...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Oh my God!

No more Christmas!! No Santa



But, ignoring my fatuous remarks - this has been apparently known for years. It is not that drastic, Archimedes highlights the insignificant effect it would have.

Antarctica, is a completely different scenario.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by jackflap
 


Still going to keep living wasteful and not pay to clean it up.. Sound logic you got there...


Truth of the matter, I am very consciences about being wasteful or littering or anything along those lines. I am just trying to point out that, at the end of this hoax called climate warming, you will be paying dearly.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
The truth is:

Increasing CO2 levels does increase temperature. That is a scientific fact confirmed by controlled experiments.

Denying that fact is like denying that thicker jackets make you warmer.
******SKIP******
Earth's jacket is getting thicker and thicker every year


It sure isn't very thick yet though!

This is from the World Almanac For KIDS!

Atmosphere,

The principal constituents of the atmosphere of the earth are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). The atmospheric gases in the remaining 1 percent are argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), varying amounts of water vapor, and trace amounts of hydrogen, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon.

Now, until somebody can actually prove that 0.03% of 1% can actually affect our whole planet, ...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'll deny it. Your jacket analogy is flawed. All your jacket does is to prevent the loss of heat that is generated by your body. The insulation qualities of your jacket keeps the heat generated by your body, near your body for a longer period of time. The jacket itself does nothing to create that heat.


No it was not flawed. I know jackets only retain body heat... that is what greenhouse gases do, they retain heat reflected by Earth from the Sun. So your knowledge of the greenhouse effect is flawed.

A jacket doesn't cover your entire body, just like CO2 doesn't completely cover the Earth. If it is hot out and you are wearing a jacket, the Sun will raise your body temperature, then your jacket will trap the heat from your body. It is the same with greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases let a certain wavelength pass and it is absorbed into Earth (the body). The heat absorbed into Earth is then changed to a different wavelength and radiated out, and greenhouse gases don't let that changed wavelength to pass, and so it traps the heat coming from Earth (like a jacket trapping heat from the body).

That is how the greenhouse effect works. It lets in a certain wavelength, and the wavelength is changed when it is radiated from Earth. The changed wavelength is blocked by greenhouse gases. It's like a one way valve, lets heat in but no heat out.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
When it comes to the Earth, the majority of heat is generated by the Sun. I say majority because there is a minor amount of heat produced by the Earth's core. If your jacket analogy was to hold true, excessive CO2 would actually create Global Cooling, because it would insulate the Earth from the Sun's heat.


Wrong. CO2 does help block certain harmful wavelengths of light, BUT it doesn't block all wavelengths light. The light it doesn't block is then absorbed into Earth (the body). The radiated Earth heat is a different wavelength, and THAT is blocked by greenhouse gases.

Your knowledge of the greenhouse effect is majorly flawed.



Originally posted by JIMC5499
As I have stated the main concern when I was younger wasn't Global Warming, it was Global Cooling. There were fears of another Ice Age being just around the corner. Scientists at this time were looking at ways to warm the Earth, not cool it. One of their ideas was to use hydrogen bombs to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, since water vapor was considered to be the most efficient greenhouse gas. Since the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule when compared to the amount of water vapor, I seriously doubt that CO2 has the effects attributed to it. Form everything I have read, the computer modeling does not take into account the effects of water vapor.


Water vapour and CO2 are both main components of our atmosphere and our greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect Earth would freeze. The opposite is true too, with too much greenhouse effect Earth will warm up. Just like the jacket analogy.

Water vapour is just one layer of the jacket, CO2 is another layer, and other gases are other layers. No matter what layer you make thicker, the entire jacket will make you warmer.

It's very simple science that I can't believe people don't understand, and directly deny.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
It sure isn't very thick yet though!


Yet.... is the keyword.

We don't want it to get thicker. We want to prevent that from happening in the future because of things that might happen.

Science has the ability to predict events, that is what makes scientific theory a scientific fact. If you can predict the speed at which an object falls before testing it, then your method of prediction is accurate.

We can predict that our levels of CO2 will be very high in the future if we don't change our ways. We can then predict what will happen to our oceans, our farms, our weather, etc. based off of that.


Originally posted by Keyhole
Now, until somebody can actually prove that 0.03% of 1% can actually affect our whole planet, ...


You see, CO2 is very important in our atmosphere. Without it Earth would freeze. We know this by scientific experiments, and observations of other planets. So that small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is actually doing a lot for our climate right now. Any changes to the CO2 will change our climate. That has ALREADY been proven, there is no debate.

Climate change is real people... I just wish you all would understand.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
One good belch and this thing can emit more greenhouse gasses in an hour than the world can in a week.

Residents flee as Philippines volcano threatens to erupt



That is a myth, a rumor, a lie. It's been going around for a while and is 100% not true.

environment.about.com...


According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.



www.grist.org...


Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect.

Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.

The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.


www.newscientist.com...


Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document).


Sorry but you are supporting a known myth.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join