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.

 

How long before Global Warming kills us all?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 



Climat != planet.

We most certainly effect the planet. Mining, using resources, putting up roads and cities, and to a degree yes that effects the climate too.

My point is, climate is effected MORE by things out of our control then us increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Methane release from the oceans effects our atmospheric climate much more than CO2 release does, even though there is far less being release than co2. And again, plants thrive on co2 which in turn give us what we need to thrive-- o2.

The whole AGW theory lost most its steam when people exposed all the politicized bad data for what it really was, an attempt to tax us for the air we breath so people can make money trading phony allowances for how much energy you're allowed to us. Redistribution of wealth get the F out of here. It only shows how science and politics should not be mixed.




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Well, I'm sure everyone has seen a graph of the earth's temperature over thousands of years. . . It's kind of hard to find online, isn't it? The only way to find it is at the library, huh? The climate is always changing.

With the degree of warming possible (9 degrees warming in 100 years), there would not be flooding outside of coastal swamps for a hundred years. The higher temperature would increase precipitation slightly, turning deserts into grassland. It would also expand the farming areas available greatly by slightly warming (of 9 degrees).

If the earth were to cool the same 9 degrees in the other direction. . . and the deserts expand quickly, and the farming land available shrinks greatly. The Sahara would expand. Half of America's farmland would become wasteland.

We are in a generally warm time, which is good. There can be more life in warmth, that's why the great civilizations expanded in warmth. The details of human progress all seem to correlate positively with global warming, but we aren't warming significantly.

We are actually cooling! Also known as the dark ages. Hopefully it only lasts a couple hundred years, and not thousands of years.

I'd say 50% of the world s population is threatened. 2110 population earth: 3 Billion.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Oh, didn't you hear? Global Warming is all a big sham.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by SlasherOfVeils
 


It's about 15 million years since we've seen CO2 levels this high. Around that time of 400ppm CO2 levels (Miocene), temperatures were somewhere between 3-6'C higher than now. Sea levels were 25-40m higher. There were no icecaps at the poles. Indeed, they only developed as CO2 levels fell.

That is the most recent comparable period. CO2 levels were only around 400ppm. Given, it will take sustained higher temperatures to rid us of the icecaps.

ABE: and for the 'we're only puny humans argument', do remember that the earth once had little oxygen until even punier microbes began photosynthesis.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by melatonin]


Sometimes I wonder if you ever listen to yourself. Sit back, take two deep breaths, and read the above quote again. Then go back to any of my posts on the subject or better yet, just listen, IT'S A CYCLE!!!!

You just provided evidence of the same. We weren't here 15 million years ago with factories and SUV's and we didn't have that stuff in the 1500's during that warm period. The earth does in fact go through cycles.

Now, do we need to change the way we do things? Hell yea. Find a cleaner fuel source, but scaring us all into being afraid the monster under the bed will get ya if you get up before morning is stupid beyond belief. THAT IS MY ARGUMENT.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It seems like alot of people here are saying "Al gore is making a disgusting amount of money off of this, therefore the entire idea of climate change is worthless", has it ever occured to you that Al Gore is a politician and will do anything to make money? If there was a meteor about to crash into earth, I'm pretty sure Al Gore would try to send mining crews there before it hits us just to get the gold off of it.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
Sometimes I wonder if you ever listen to yourself. Sit back, take two deep breaths, and read the above quote again. Then go back to any of my posts on the subject or better yet, just listen, IT'S A CYCLE!!!!

You just provided evidence of the same. We weren't here 15 million years ago with factories and SUV's and we didn't have that stuff in the 1500's during that warm period. The earth does in fact go through cycles.


No, not at all. In the Miocene the CO2 was part of the natural carbon cycle. Currently we are emitting billions of tonnes of the stuff which had been locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years each and every year.

Nothing cyclic about that.

What it provides us is insight into the likely effect of our current actions.

Just whining 'IT'S A CYCLE' doesn't really cut it. Indeed, if self-analysis is required here, I think you might want to ponder how pathetically vacuous the 'dinosaurs driving SUVs' style argument is.


Now, do we need to change the way we do things? Hell yea. Find a cleaner fuel source, but scaring us all into being afraid the monster under the bed will get ya if you get up before morning is stupid beyond belief. THAT IS MY ARGUMENT.


I'm not even bothered to scare you. Just telling you the current science.

That's what you asked for. So you essentially asked for the information, then attempt to label merely giving what you asked for akin to scaremongering, and then call responding to your question 'stupid beyond belief'. lol.

Yeah, it probably was stupid of me to bother responding - not as if the thread was going to produce much worthwhile discussion, we even have the traditional Gorangement found in such threads (4 mentions of Teh Gorelax just in the first few posts, lol).

Anyways: ahhh, diddums. I can feed your wishful-thinking if you'd prefer it...

All's fine, dude. Carry on. Nothing to worry about. JUST A CLOWN ON A UNICYCLE. Ignore the science at all costs! Darned communist elitists with da pesky numbers and evidence.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by melatonin
 


and going back to ice cores from both poles, there is evidence that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, yet both people, plants and animals survived just fine.


Were there 6,700,000,000 people and did they all have a car, a TV, air conditioning and internet access?


That's the difference



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Global warmin is a load of Crap Theres no Global warmin if you belive in Global warmin then your a Brainwashed Fool.
You more chance of dieing from a car crash.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Well, locally we just went through our longest spell of super cold days for 113 years, of course that means nothing to average global temperatures, lol

I think its an important point to note, that thousands of years ago, the earth was naturally producing a lot more CO2 than it is today. Volcanic activity anyone


Personally though, I do believe the earth goes through lengthy periods of heating and cooling, but real time observational data does not go back far enough to prove either side of the argument. I cant really believe the ice core stuff, mainly because it cant be proven that the entire earth was like that sample, at the time it was embedded in ice. To prove that the earth had more CO2 (or less depedning on which side of the argument you're on), you would literally have had to take samples from all across the globe to get a fairly accurate idea of what it was like...but thats just my view on the argument



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufosbri
reply to post by network dude
 


Global warmin is a load of Crap Theres no Global warmin if you belive in Global warmin then your a Brainwashed Fool.
You more chance of dieing from a car crash.


There is global warming in the same way the Earth revolves around the Sun. of course, some do not believe the earth revolves around the sun ....

And you have more chance of dying in a car crash than being struck by lightning. Doesn't mean lightning is not real though, nor that thousands of people die every year around the world as a direct result of human activity affecting regional climates. Just ask the people of Haiti.

You have every right to mock those who die as a consequence of human activity affecting climate. But only you have to live with it.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Is it me, or do I doubt a few hundred years of statistics regarding the cooling and heating of the earth? If all the planets are experiencing warming, then the sum answer is the sun activity.

I really doubt human activity is causing global warming.

Scientists are limited and rely on sedimintary evaluations to interpret the worlds history. Why does everyone assume they are right?

We are mere children living in an unknown world.

Even in recrent history (within thousands of years) we have had warming and cooling periods throughout. We have to stop freaking out on recent climate data. We need a few hundred more years of scientific research to conclude empiracal data that is less impartial to politics and money and more to the real workings of our solar system.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by SlasherOfVeils
 


It's about 15 million years since we've seen CO2 levels this high. Around that time of 400ppm CO2 levels (Miocene), temperatures were somewhere between 3-6'C higher than now. Sea levels were 25-40m higher. There were no icecaps at the poles. Indeed, they only developed as CO2 levels fell.

That is the most recent comparable period. CO2 levels were only around 400ppm. Given, it will take sustained higher temperatures to rid us of the icecaps.

ABE: and for the 'we're only puny humans argument', do remember that the earth once had little oxygen until even punier microbes began photosynthesis.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by melatonin]


Sometimes I wonder if you ever listen to yourself. Sit back, take two deep breaths, and read the above quote again. Then go back to any of my posts on the subject or better yet, just listen, IT'S A CYCLE!!!!

You just provided evidence of the same. We weren't here 15 million years ago with factories and SUV's and we didn't have that stuff in the 1500's during that warm period. The earth does in fact go through cycles.

Now, do we need to change the way we do things? Hell yea. Find a cleaner fuel source, but scaring us all into being afraid the monster under the bed will get ya if you get up before morning is stupid beyond belief. THAT IS MY ARGUMENT.


How can people fail to understand this so utterly - yes there are cycles - we, and all the worlds scientists are thoroughly aware of this - hence why they are alarmed. The cycles are well known and udnerstood, as are the reasons behind them. The period of high co2 was cause by India traversing across the ocean dragging up large quantities of co2, the same process also subducted large amounts - when it crashed into asia creating the himalays, the youngest mountain range on earth, it cerated the massive spike and co2 has been falling since then.
Besides this there are two main cuases of the cycle, earth wobble, and our wobble within our orbit. these can coincide and cause temperature peaks from being closer to the sun.

The problem we are facing is that the natural cycle should be one of cooling, hence the alarm regarding a new ice age in the seventies. The problem is that temperatures are increasing when they should be decreasing.

Co2 has been a well known greenhouse gas for almost two hundred years - its one of its properties - look it up.

Please stop thinking that scientists somehow overlookd the cyclical nature of climate - it only tells everyone that you ahve never, ever read a book on this subject.

Please read James Hansen storms of our grandchildren to get an understanding of the issues involved.

To answer the op's original question - we have already had warming of .6 of a degree and can expect another 2 within the next 20 years. This is catastrophic. Read 6 degrees - very insightful.

At 6 degrees the methane hydrates will become unstable and potentially cause fire storms hundreds of times larger than any normal hurricane and wipe out all life.

At two degrees we will see global starvation - at one degree more glaciers will have melted meaning most of central asia will be without water causing mass starvation and billions of immigrants.

This is not a joke - please read about this and stop getting your information from the internet.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


IMO we are already experiencing a major change in climate and this is already creating turbulent and unpredictable weather patterns.

But...
I am not entirely sure that GW is to blame.
There is just as much evidence to suggest that the pole shift would create the same increasing instability. The magnetic poles have been moving for a little while now, with evidence to suggest that they have done so hundreds of thousands of times throughout history.

We are very sure that our "meddling" creates instabilities on Earth, but IMO we give ourselves too much credit and mother Earth too little. Everything evolves.
And I am doubtful that a couple of hundred years of our existence will do much to stop the planet from happily supporting life. Sure, we might kill ourselves, and a few other species along the way, but that's all.

So, to conclude...
I believe there is a chance that the changes we are seeing are as a result of a natural cycle involving the coming pole shift. There will likely be lots of quakes, freak weather and incredible floods. A few million will die through it. And then it'll calm down and we'll write a nice little story about it for the people in a few hundred years to turn into a despotic religion.

And so continues the cycle of life on this planet.

NOTE: My opinion does not mean that I think we should carry on raping this planet for our benefit. We are an incredibly arrogant species and I support the entire GW movement if only to stop our abuses and disgusting behavior toward our home.
It's the only thing that seems to be working to stop the Human Race from completely losing all connection to the Earth other than in an "aw, doesn't that look pretty" mentality.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   


I guess the best and brightest, paid by those pushing the agenda, can interpret extrapolated data over milleniums because scientists NEVER make mistakes. They especially NEVER fudge their data, right?

As for the strawman argument that even if their is no manmade global warming what could it hurt? Well why do we not just kill off all the government officials because what would it hurt? Stop the strawmans.

Pollution needs to stop. Will this do anything about it, carbon credits scam I mean? Of course not, this is just another direct tax scheme cooked up by ENRON a few years back and being implemented as the next communist control schema.

Sorry to burst your bubble tree huggers, but you are funded by the oil companies and the other globalist corporate shills controlled by the banksters.

Keep up the good work of enslaving mankind. You are doing a good job of it.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Come on I am being serious, Manbearpig is real.

At the rate Gore is spewing hot air we are all doomed!

Tax me as a breathe out, I am creating greenhouse gases. Hey wait, if I hold my breath more I can trade my excess carbon credits for cash and buy more beer and sushi.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
After having read all of the replies to this thread, I find a correlation between the level of scientific understanding of the poster and his or her grammar skills. If that sounds snobby, it's not meant to be taken that way. I don't have the best grammar, either.

A problem so many people have engaging in the global warming debate is that it seems impossible for the subject to know whether he is the one who is brainwashed or his opponent...unless he is properly educated. I will say that the intelligence level here is higher than the national average, but only slightly.

I find it funny that many people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job are climate change deniers. I don't think they commit the fallacies intentionally, but are victims of their personal authorities and pundit choices.

To address the climate problem we must overcome social inequalities. We are blocked by those who have personal interest in obstructing international democracy. What good will scientific truths do us if we the people continue to be spun by the media which is controlled by the power establishment? Apparently stupidity is stronger than intelligence at this stage of the game. Perhaps a massive die off will alter our attitude toward many issues of survival that need attending to- nuclear proliferation, food shortages, obesity and other related health issues, these are all issues we can tackle together and although we may not be able to come together to solve the cause of global warming, it would behoove us as a species to do the dignified thing and begin taking better care of ourselves no matter what country we hail from.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
It get's hot and the global warming stuff starts to come back,
i'm sure when winter comes back everyone will be lining up for their swine flu shots



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


Nope, dont buy it. Clever vid but too symplistic and too many unproven assumptions about what will happen.
The assumptions are not that simple, and the real question is the man made part, not the eventuality of climate change up or down which has gone on for millions of years. Furthermore there is no reason to expect that economic devastation from wasting money on preventing a change is any better outcome than just dealing with climate change by doing nothing more than dealing with its effects WHICH ARE AS YET MERELY CONJECTURE as to the effects especially as so far all the conjecture has been wrong. Put another way there is no guarantee that we can change things for the better regardless any expenditure, especially as CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas even at multiples of present rates and even as it increases AFTER temperature rise and not the cause of it, it is beneficial for plant life and hence food production. Previous high temp and higher CO2 levels in the carboniferous period resulted in what by all accounts was a rather lush environment and resulted in the largest plant and animal life in the earths history.
Bottom line, the real insinuation is that there are too many humans and because it is assumed that they are too incapable of adjusting and everything MUST go into the crapper, SOMEBODY must decide who to let live and who to compel to die.
There is no climatological agreement about the manmade nature of global warming or if it;s even possible, and the best evidence is that any cyclical warming is FROM THE SUN, which in one day dumps more energy on the planet than 'produced by the entire calculated activity of mankind throughout history, so nope, not buying that sending money to those who will profit by creating a new CO2 currency exchange out of thin and incidentally free air for their own extravagant lifestyles is gonna do anything beneficial for the planet or mankind. Mankind adapts and carries on, when did we become such helpless dependent wimps?



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by network dude
 


I think recently the world has been distracted with other things and it’s taken a bit of a back seat, its still there and still very important to those who believe in GW. Things like the world cup, BP oil spill and so on are a distraction and it means GW is not high in the media agenda.




Absolutely ridiculous!!!

You're telling me that an effing soccer game can distract us form the so called global warming that is allegedly going to turn us all mad, drown us in in the oceans and extinct all ground dwelling animals?!

Or how about this more plausible answer; once all the facts came out and people started doing their own research into the so called global warming, people(including myself, I'll be honest about believing) found out what a bogus hoax it was and hopefully we will no longer perpetuate such an egregious lie again.

What I'm more disappointed in is that when people realized that they had been lied to and believed so hard in something that they didn't make a huge deal out of it. But then again, it seems that most people truly are sheep and will believe only what they are told without any further independent research. Lead the way to the slaughterhouse.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Anyway, I though we were all going to die from catastrophic global cooling within the next 2 decades?




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join