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.

 

Scientists agreeing end of times is near?

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I can understand your sentiments and I congratulate you for putting them so passionately.
But we really should blame our ancestors who started the industrial revolution. It really isn't this generation that is responsible for the damage but it seems we might be responsible for the clean up.
I don't drive, I now don't have a license to drive as I let it expire 7 years ago. I either walk or take public transport.
I'm sitting here at 11pm with ONE LIGHT on in the whole apartment. Its winter here too and I'm wearing 2 jumpers with no heating on.
I recycle and everything in my home is furnished with good quality pre loved furniture.
I've done and doing my bit on a micro level to get my carbon footprint to zero.
I'm not going to appreciate on top of the sacrifices, be forced to pay any extra in food or power through some kind of tax just because others can't or won't readjust their lives.
And I don't believe for one minute that us paying hundreds of trillions globally is going to bring stability to the weather nor will it have any effect on climate change. I think you are deluding yourself if you truly believe that anything will change. Once something is politicised, you can kiss goodbye to it having any kind of resolution or solution.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Flighty]




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Wow... you seriously need to learn how to make a concise, and intelligent argument, and being able to prove your point, which you haven't.


My first post on this topic was so concise and intelligent that most fools could understand it.

The atmosphere is like a jacket. A thicker jacket makes you warmer. The massive output of CO2 created by human machines is making the atmosphere thicker. Earth does not have the means necessary to keep up with the production of humans CO2, so there will be a massive increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The laws of light and matter prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and act's like the glass of a greenhouse. This means it will trap heat, and warm Earth.

You have yet to prove any of this is incorrect. You fail agian and again.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You cannot make such a "grand generalization and then claim it proves your point...


I am not making any grand generalizations. You are.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Atmospheric CO2 constitutes 0.038% of Earth's atmosphere, and that is not a sufficient enough volume to cause any noticeable warming on Earth...


The atmosphere contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas. Argon is not a greenhouse gas. However, CARBON DIOXIDE IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. So which gas do you think has the most effect on temperature? CO2!

You failed.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Let's actually see who "fails miserably"...


Spoiler alert. It's YOU who fails miserably.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You posted wikipedia as reliable source to try to prove your AGW claims, and I actually proved that wikipedia is biased in favor of AGW, and they rig their information, articles, make false claims, and even erase the response made by real scientists just to hide the facts regarding Climate Change.


The only link I ever posted to wikipeida was a link that explains how greenhouses work (which you failed to read). I can post MANY other sources that will explain how greenhouses work and they will all say the same thing as wikipeida. I will now do that:

tlc.howstuffworks.com...
ezinearticles.com...
www.howitworks.net...
www.ehow.com...

You know what, just google it. You will find all the links say the same thing:

Google - How Greenhouses Work.

You failed, yet again. I can't believe you are actually trying to debunk me and global warming because of a source I used which I verified my self to be accurate, and you could have verified yourself to be accurate.



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
For crying out loud, you don't even know how a greenhouse works... Greenhouses get hot because THERE IS NO AIR CIRCULATION... It has nothing to do with CO2...and in many cases people have to use heaters inside their greenhouses to make it hotter, and in other cases they have to use fans to have some air circulation and make it cooler...


Wow, a MAJOR FAILURE! You failed to learn how to read. I never claimed CO2 has anything to do with how greenhouses work. Its the GLASS of the greenhouse that traps heat. Also, the "greenhouse effect" has nothing to do with lack of air circulation. It's all about the GLASS letting in radiation, and not letting it out.

You failed AGAIN. I can't believe you don't even know how greenhouses work, even after I posted a link to an explaination!

To be continued...

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tripple_Helix

Since when did having a conscience about what we put into the atmosphere, trying to save forests that give us our OXYGEN so that we don't SUFFOCATE TO DEATH, caring about overfishing, toxic waste and other things that negatively affect the environment- make us "environlunatics"?

I have never heard bigger bull $!#% in my life...


NONE of that have ANYTHING to do with atmospheric CO2...and it has been atmospheric CO2 which has been blamed for climate Change...

LEARN HOW TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT, AND LEARN TO STAY ON TOPIC...

I am more concerned, as I have said REPEATEDLY, with REAL toxic chemicals which are being released into oceans, and the atmosphere, and which the environlunatics are not discussing, and instead want to blame ATMOSPHERIC CO2 for all the problems in the world...

BTW, if you were REALLY concerned about the forests, you would not want "CO2 depletion" which is what the environlunatics have been calling for for the most part...

Atmospheric CO2 as it exists right now is too low, and does not allow enough harvests, or even for forests, and does not allow the entire green biomass to increase as much as it had done in past geological times when atmospheric CO2 levels were even 7 times higher than it is now, and the forests were lush, green, and stronger than ever before, or after, not to mention that life also existed during such times.

BTW, the three, or four of you who keep patting each other in the back dismissing the facts need to do research in the "depopulation schemes" that the rich elites want for you...

They want LESS atmospheric CO2 simply because it will decrease the harvest/production of food, which in turn will starve more people to death...

Use that brain you have for once in your life...


Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

Today the call for depopulating the earth has grown louder than ever. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the earth. [size]Ted Turner states "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be idea", and the global elite applaud him. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are quoted more and more with approval by our leaders.

shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com...


Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior" also once stated that he would like to come back to earth as a disease someday to help reduce the human population.

But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from everywhere:

John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning at University College London has said:The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."



He has also stated: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

Mikhail Gorbachev made this shocking statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there arent enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."



The reality is that we are getting closer and closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated". Is this the kind of world that you want to live in?

shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com...


www.roguegovernment.com...

Here are some other quotes of some of the elites who want to "depopulate the Earth"...


There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels.
Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….”
“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to
support it. There were just too goddamned many people….



To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females….” “The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”
Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs



In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.
Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider – Founder and Secretary, respectively, The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pgs 104-105, 1991



“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
Stanford Professor ” Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb

www.scribd.com...


Go figure...and what some people call "the shepple" are those who are too brainwashed to think for themselves, and who believe the lies the elites have concocted for people to accept "depopulation schemes" like Global Warming/AGW...

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Let me show you what people with greenhouses actually know, and what they have to do...


You don't even know how to read your own sources! Let alone my posts! I never said anything about CO2 being used in greenhouses.


Yet, you go on about it and post misleading information, and make several reading comprehension errors!


HAHAHAHA you make this too easy. Let me show you your errors;


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Cold House vs. Heated Greenhouse



A cold house is the simplest of greenhouses, it is not equipped with any artificial means of heat and thus the growing season is shortened when the outside temperature drops below freezing....

A cold house does extend the growing season from that of the outdoors by trapping the heat from the sun during the day.



Did you read that? NO ARTIFICIAL HEAT. This means it relies on SUNLIGHT. It traps heat from the Sun!! How? The greenhouse effect! The GLASS of the greenhouse lets radiation in, but not out, just like our atmosphere!

You failed again...

They even go on to say this:


When you install a heater into your cold house it becomes a true greenhouse and it transforms the hobby of gardening into a year-round hobby.


A heater is ARTIFICIAL HEAT. They were talking about using heat to grow plants in the winter when there is no Sun to be trapped by the greenhouse GLASS.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Gardeners who have greenhouses increase atmospheric CO2 NOT TO MAKE IT HOT SINCE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TEMPERATURE, but rather to INCREASE HARVEST/PRODUCTION of plants/trees....


I never said anything about CO2 in greenhouses. The only reason I mentioned greenhouses is because of the way the GLASS of a greenhouse lets radiation in, but not out. Just like CO2 in our atmosphere lets radiation in, and some of it can't get out.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
What CO2 does to a greenhouse is to INCREASE THE HARVEST/PRODUCTION OF PLANTS/TREES...but environlunatics claim that CO2 is bad for the environment...


CO2 is good for plants. CO2 is bad for water, it disolves in water and makes a weak ACID. Life does not live well when it is acidic.

Once again, I said nothing about CO2 in greenhouses, so you made a major error, and then ran with it.

Your failure is so catestrophic that I hope you never return to this topic out of pure embrassement.

Fail, fail, fail..

To be continued....


[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Heck, I can prove it to be true with my truck! The inside of my truck gets hotter than the outside because light can pass through the window, and when it is radiated off my interior at a different wavelength, it can't escape the windows, and gets trapped.


wow... again the reason why it gets hot inside your truck is because THERE IS NO AIR CIRCULATION...


Wrong! Do you even know the basics of science?

Radiation from the Sun passes through the windows, and when it is reflectect off of the interior at a different wavelength, it can NOT pass through the windows so it gets trapped and heats the inside.

This is basic science. I knew this since I was 12 years old. Here are some other people who knew it too...

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

askville.amazon.com...

You failed, yet again. Why am I not surprised? Maybe because TRUTH is on my side, and not yours.

Let me ask you wise guy... If I had a car with all the windows shut, and it was sealed from outside, and the air inside was really hot..... If I put a fan in the car, would it cool it down?

I look forward to laughing at your answer.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The Earth is NOT a closed system, there is air circulation all year around, and it is affected by several outside sources from Earth's atmosphere, and not only by the Sun.


Wrong! Fail yet again..

The Earth IS a closed system. However, it can be considered open only when talking about radiation energy.

www.uwsp.edu...


The Earth system as a whole is a closed system.


Other sources that would agree;

answers.yahoo.com...

wiki.answers.com...

www.cuesd.tehama.k12.ca.us...

It must suck to fail as much as you...



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
That's also without discussing other facts, such as the oceans effect on the atmosphere. In fact recent research has proven that the oceans are the ones which have been heating the atmosphere, and not the other way around.


Who cares what is heating the atmosphere? That debate is not needed to prove that large collections of CO2 could heat the atmopshere. There are many things that can heat the atmosphere. I am debating the fact that CO2 is one of them.

Showing me that other things can heat the atmosphere does not prove that excess CO2 created by humans can not.

Your argument about the ocean is irrelevant. Fail again...


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
What is "useless" are your illogical, flawed comments, and who "fails, fails, fails" is you when you don't even understand how a greenhouse works...


Actually, I explained perfectly well how a greenhouse works. I even used many sources to back up what I said, and you FAILED to read them or understand them.

Then, you prove to us all that you have ZERO KNOWLEDGE about how a greenhouse works.

It's SICK, and DISGUSTING, that someone like you who knows NOTHING can actually sit here and try to debate about global warming. YOU are the people who deny the very REAL THREAT that our pollution causes, and YOU are a major part of the problem we face.

I highly suggest you go back to school, take a science class, and don't try to debate about something you are clueless about.

I will not talk to you any longer. You are a waste of time.

Unless you complete this following course, I will ignore you and your repetitive failures;

ocw.mit.edu...








[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jess_Undefined
 


fearmongering.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Surely there must be a difference between the carbon dioxide we breathe out and the fuel emissions caused by factories and automobiles...?

And my point, in my previous post- was that calling people who care about the environment- "environlunatics" is just plain nasty and detestable. I said nothing that has anything to do with the reply you gave me. Read.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


* FACT: Average global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the 20th century.
They base that on heat islands such as airports. Of couse cities are hotter than the county, but there is a lot more country than city.

* FACT: The United States contains only 5 percent of the world's population, but contributes 22 percent of the world's carbon emissions.
We also contrubute a lot more beneficial things too, like food. No guilt trip for me!

* FACT: Personal cars and trucks in the United States emit 20 percent of the United States' carbon emissions. Sounds impressive, but it's not enough to cause a problem.

* FACT: Air conditioning and heating account for almost half of electricity use in the average American home. You can give up those things as a good example. Do you applaud the homeless for their conservation contributions?

* FACT: Climate change is linked to stronger hurricanes, more drought and increased coral deaths from bleaching.
Scientist are rather confounded that we are having a relatively quiet season...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

My first post on this topic was so concise and intelligent that most fools could understand it.


Ooooh, I see, so only fools can understand what you wrote. I get it...


Originally posted by Unst0ppable0neThe atmosphere is like a jacket. A thicker jacket makes you warmer. The massive output of CO2 created by human machines is making the atmosphere thicker.


CO2 acts like a jacket?... really?... I guess in the world you live on you don't see the blue skies...CO2 must be blanketing, and obscuring completely whatever planet you are living on in order to "be like a jacket"...

Don't you understand what it means that atmospheric CO2 constitutes 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere?... It means there is barely ANY CO2 compared to the other gases that constitute Earth's atmosphere, so it also means that CO2 DOES NOT act like a jacket...

But who knows, maybe in the planet you live on you use nets, which are mostly holes, as jackets...

BTW, you are forgetting water vapor which constitutes 1%-4% of Earth's atmosphere and compared to atmospheric CO2 it is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2 ever will be...

Water vapor is the real "greenhouse gas"...

Anyone with ANY intelligence knows when is it hotter... Is it hotter when the skies are clear, or when there are low lying clouds, and a lot of water vapor?...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Earth does not have the means necessary to keep up with the production of humans CO2, so there will be a massive increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.


REALLY?... I wonder how you communicate with the Earth to know the production of atmospheric CO2 the Earth can take...

Tell us oh all knowing master how was the Earth able to deal with the higher levels of atmospheric CO2 it had in the past?...

I guess according to you Earth has never had more atmospheric CO2 than at present since you are claiming "the Earth does not have the means necessary to keep up with the production of anthropogenic CO2: when it is nothing compared to the levels they have been in Earth's geological lifetime...



And "there will be massive increase of CO2 in the atmosphere"?... Really?... it has taken over 130 years for temperatures to increase by 1C, AND MOST OF IT IS NATURAL...

Perhaps you missed the research I posted that shows that solar activity had been increasing for about from 85 years to 100 years or more until recently, more than it had for the past 1,000 years or more...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
The laws of light and matter prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and act's like the glass of a greenhouse. This means it will trap heat, and warm Earth.


... the laws of light and matter?... what the heck are you talking about?... You are nothing but "DELUSIONAL"... There is no law, or laws called "the laws of light and matter"...

Do you mean the law of conservation of energy?...

SPECIFICALLY state which law, or laws you are talking about... There are NO LAWS CALLED "the laws of light and matter"...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
You have yet to prove any of this is incorrect. You fail agian and again.


i have actually proven I know what I am talking about, and you have proven not to know what the heck you are talking about...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
I am not making any grand generalizations. You are.


Really?... "The laws of light and matter"... and the other illogical statements you made which made no sense are a bit too general to know what in the world you are talking about...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
The atmosphere contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas. Argon is not a greenhouse gas. However, CARBON DIOXIDE IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. So which gas do you think has the most effect on temperature? CO2!

You failed.



I know better than you the composition of Earth's atmosphere.. I have been writing about this subject for years in these forums before you arrived...

BTW, you once again forgot to include atmospheric water vapor which constitutes 1%-4% of Earth's atmosphere and it is water vapor which causes more greenhouse effect than CO2 ever will...

BTW, in order for CO2 to "heat up the atmosphere" noticeably it would have to absorb many times more the radiation in the form of heat from the Sun than it is able to absorb now, because it would have to heat up the particles of the other elements that make up Earth's atmosphere.



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Spoiler alert. It's YOU who fails miserably.


OMG... THAT'S IT... THAT IS THE PROOF THAT DEBUNKS EVERYTHING I POSTED....




Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
The only link I ever posted to wikipeida was a link that explains how greenhouses work (which you failed to read). I can post MANY other sources that will explain how greenhouses work and they will all say the same thing as wikipeida. I will now do that:

You failed, yet again. I can't believe you are actually trying to debunk me and global warming because of a source I used which I verified my self to be accurate, and you could have verified yourself to be accurate.


Reaaaally?... Again you are trying to tell us that when you open a door/windows, or when you add a fan to a greenhouse it doesn't get cooler?...

I wonder why we need fans then?...




Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Wow, a MAJOR FAILURE! You failed to learn how to read. I never claimed CO2 has anything to do with how greenhouses work. Its the GLASS of the greenhouse that traps heat. Also, the "greenhouse effect" has nothing to do with lack of air circulation. It's all about the GLASS letting in radiation, and not letting it out.

You failed AGAIN. I can't believe you don't even know how greenhouses work, even after I posted a link to an explaination!


"Major failure"?...
... so again you are telling us that when you open a window/door, or when you add a fan it doesn't get cooler inside the greenhouse?...

I wonder why people use fans in greenhouses, and in houses.... "Major failure duuude"...
feels like I am talking to a teenage mutant ninja turtle...and not the one that actually knows anything about science...

BTW..in case you didn't know atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT act like a glass simply because atmospheric CO2 levels are too low to "act as a glass"...

In case you haven't noticed there are winds all over the world, meanwhile in a greenhouse there is no air circulation at all unless you add a fan, or open a door, or windows...

I already EXCERPTED what people who actually have greenhouses have to say...

I actually proved the fact that nature, and ALL the green biomass of Earth THRIVES with higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 than present...

But I guess "fools can't understand any of it"...


Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
To be continued...


What?.. more illogical ramblings... oh boy...I can't wait....



[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
There is a massive amount of data pointing to the fact that the planet is in the midst of a serious climactic shift. The planet is warming, weather patterns are shifting and we are just beginning to see the fallout from this. But people seem to be stuck on Global Warming = man made. Who cares? It's unlikely that we DON'T contribute to the problem but, IMHO, unlikely that we're the sole source of the problem. Observations of the rest of the solar system seems to point to a solar and/or galactic component to our climactic change. But at the end of the day things ARE changing and it's not a good thing. Look at the news. Look at what is going on around the world weather-wise. We're in a serious situation and it's getting worse by the day. Make no mistake about it. This has been going on for a very long time and we've only begun to feel the effects.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty


I'm not going to appreciate on top of the sacrifices, be forced to pay any extra in food or power through some kind of tax just because others can't or won't readjust their lives.


I dont think you appreciate the fact that you will be forced to pay more for food water and power whether anything gets cleaned up or not. Thats just simple supply and demand. As the population grows, our resource base cannot. And, we are mining non renewable resources. Just that simple formula dictates that you will be paying more in the future.

Add to that monopoly control over resources. Water rights are being consolidated around the world, as are other resources. (Oil most obviously) A handful of concerns are trying to grab up and control the flow of these resources, which will allow them to become price setters, not price takers, and they will always aim for more profit, and your costs will go up. Water and fuel costs affect food costs.

You are going to pay more to live regardless whether we do anything about our situation or not. That is just a basic economic truth.

Now, we can do nothing, and pay more because of profit taking and corporatism, and end up with a shambles of an environment, a shambles of government, etc., or we can get together and really evaluate our situation from the ground up and begin to make changes politically as well as personally.

You are right, you cannot do it alone. And you are right, it is unfair that some are trying to manage their footprint while others are stomping all over the place in huge boots. Its very much the tragedy of the commons.

en.wikipedia.org...


The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.




Originally posted by Flighty
And I don't believe for one minute that us paying hundreds of trillions globally is going to bring stability to the weather nor will it have any effect on climate change.


I dont either. I do not think any of the schemes planned will have any impact. For one, those who are saying it is all a money making scam are not wrong. There are indeed, scammers who have looked at a real dilemma and figured out a way to profit from it.

And, I think climate change is BOTH the result of human activity and natural cycle. I dont think this is all in our control. But, that doesnt mean we should do nothing at all. Some things ARE in our control. Our actions in the face of adverse circumstances are completely in our control. Apathy and resignation are not our only options here.

We could begin in earnest to push for stricter controls on corporatism. Regain control of our democracies and force them to behave in less damaging ways. This would help us prevent them from becoming price setters and charging whatever they want for the items they have monopoly or oligopoly control over no matter what the climate does or does not do.

We can realize that a huge population is not in our best interests, and voluntarily reduce our birthrate, so that in a few generations there is less pressure from the population on our remaining resources. That strategy also weakens the corporate scam. As virtually all the worlds economies are pyramid schemes. Reliant upon an ever increasing base of consumers and tax payers to work. Unfortunately, pyramid schemes never work in the long run because it is impossible to have infinite expansion in a finite system. We dont have to wait for it to hit critical mass, we can begin dismantling the system on our own.

We have choices. Why human being force themselves intellectually into a position of "Well, I cant stop whats happening therefore I must do nothing at all" I do not know. We have more choices than to stop climate change or do nothing at all. We can prepare for it. We can do everything possible to make sure that some human have the chance to survive and evolve, and not just those super rich who are responsible for a disproportionate share of this damage.

Even if we develop the technology to leave this planet and go to a new one, (A hope many hold) you will not get to go. You will be left here with the rest of the unimportant peoples of the world to either repair the damage or to die in the mess. Why just give up? Why just roll over in the face of difficulty? Its not what our ancestors did. Its what everyone presently extinct did.


Originally posted by Flighty
I think you are deluding yourself if you truly believe that anything will change. Once something is politicised, you can kiss goodbye to it having any kind of resolution or solution.


I disagree. Things can change. But we need to shake off the carefully cultivated cloak of apathy and hopelessness that we have been given. Honestly, we should be ashamed that we have been wearing it for so long.

And things WILL change whether we want them to or not. Change is inevitable. The only question is do we want to participate in deciding what changes we make? Or just sit in a puddle of hopelessness and let sociopaths make all those decisions for us?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
....
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about ONLY 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
...


Humm... First of all natural emissions include:

1. Respiration of vegetation which releases 220 gigatonnes of atmospheric CO2.
2. Decomposition from vegetation, microbes, and animals 220 gigatonnes per year.
3. Release from some part of the oceans about 332 gigatonnes per year...
4. plus the 0.3 gigatonnes per year "NORMALLY"...

Can anyone add up?...


Natural emissions are yearly 772.3 gigatonnes per year "NORMALLY" and these are "guesstimates"... But "the Earth can't take 26-29 billion tonnes of CO2...


I already showed that if there is not enough atmospheric CO2 THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HARVESTS.. and plants, and trees do not grow as much as they could...

CO2 is a natural gas which is NEEDED by ALL LIFE at much higher levels than at present...

We have a problem with food production, yet the elites, and the environlunatics who have fallen for the lies want to decrease atmospheric CO2 more?...

Can these people add up?...

Less atmospheric CO2 than at present will mean less harvests, and if the atmospheric CO2 levels drop to 300ppm plants, trees, and all green biomass starts to STARVE... which means animals and humans will STARVE MORE...

But hey, keep drinking the AGW kool-aid even when the AGW scientists have been caught with their pants down...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Ooooh, I see, so only fools can understand what you wrote. I get it...


I never said "only fools". I made my comment so simple that fools are able to understand it. However, I must be wrong since you are having trouble with it...


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
CO2 acts like a jacket?... really?... I guess in the world you live on you don't see the blue skies...CO2 must be blanketing, and obscuring completely whatever planet you are living on in order to "be like a jacket"...


There you go again, failing to read. I never said CO2 acts like a jacket, I said the ATMOSPHERE as a whole acts like a jacket. Your comment is childish actually. You prove that you have no clue what the atmosphere does. And you prove you fail at reading.

In the cold, a jacket traps your body heat from escaping, but not all of it, just like the atmosphere. In the heat, a jacket protects your body from harmful radiation from the sun, but not all of it. A jacket doesn't cover your entire body, and the atmopshere does not block the entire Earth from sunlight.

The only reason I said anything about the ATMOSPHERE being like a jacket is because I felt the need to "dumb down" the examples since you fail to understand them all.

I would much rather use the examples of your vehicles trapping heat, and a greenhouse trapping heat, rather than a jacket trapping heat. No matter what, you show your complete lack of understanding. So I don't know why I even bother to reply to you.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Don't you understand what it means that atmospheric CO2 constitutes 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere?. It means there is barely ANY CO2 compared to the other gases that constitute Earth's atmosphere, so it also means that CO2 DOES NOT act like a jacket.


Don't you know that if all that CO2 suddenly disapeared that Earth would most likely be a much colder place? It doesn't matter how much there is, what matters is that it is there at all. That little amount of CO2 add's to the greenhouse effect. Humans are adding to the CO2 every day, so your figure is probably inaccurate anyway.

Again, the said the ATMOSPHERE (all gases) is like a jacket, not just CO2. The fact that you have to hang on my simplification mean you have no argument and you are just bickering and argueing semantics.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, you are forgetting water vapor which constitutes 1%-4% of Earth's atmosphere and compared to atmospheric CO2 it is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2 ever will be...


No I am not forgetting that. That is irrelevant to my arguement that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. You have yet to prove to me that adding CO2 does NOT add to the greenhouse effect. All you do is make claims that there is very little CO2, and that other gases act like greenhouse gases. You are really stretching and grasping at straws. Loopy arguments that have no meaning.

Prove to me that humans adding CO2 does NOT add to the greenhosue effect. YOU CAN'T.

To be continued...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Water vapor is the real "greenhouse gas"...


So you are claiming that CO2 is a FAKE greenhouse gas? Wow, you realy lost it...

Yes, I know water vapor is a green house gas, I already mnetioned it three times on this topic. That is also irrelevant to my argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and humans are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases (CO2) in the atmosphere.

You are grapsing at straws and you have NOTHING, you have no arguement.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Anyone with ANY intelligence knows when is it hotter... Is it hotter when the skies are clear, or when there are low lying clouds, and a lot of water vapor?...




Clouds block visibile light, that is why it is cooler. You are comparing apples to oranges. CO2 doesn't block visible light, only infrared and near-infrared light.

Yet another failure. Your argument doesn't disprove CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
REALLY?... I wonder how you communicate with the Earth to know the production of atmospheric CO2 the Earth can take...


...it's simple. The CO2 levels for the past few years have only gotten higher. This means the Earth is not keeping up with CO2 production. If Earth was able to keep up with production, it would never rise. If it was capable of dealing with more CO2 than we produce, then the levels should be falling. It's called logic, you should try it some time.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Tell us oh all knowing master how was the Earth able to deal with the higher levels of atmospheric CO2 it had in the past?...


In the past, CO2 production decreased allowing Earth to clean itself.

Humans are not allowing CO2 production to decrease, so Earth will aways be cleaning itself, and it will never get clean again until we stop or slow production of CO2.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I guess according to you Earth has never had more atmospheric CO2 than at present since you are claiming "the Earth does not have the means necessary to keep up with the production of anthropogenic CO2: when it is nothing compared to the levels they have been in Earth's geological lifetime...


Again, you misquote me, or fail to read what I said. You guessed wrong. You should stop guessing.

In the past, CO2 levels on Earth were high because of volcanic erruptions, and other sources. However, volcanic erruptions are not constant, and they stopped and or slowed down allowing Earth to clean itself, and reduce CO2 levels.

Earth has never before had to deal with a constant 29 billion tonnes per year prodcution of CO2 from humans. It's like hundreds of never ending volcanos, and there is no end in sight. This means Earth will never have a chance to clean itself and return to lower levels.

It's like your liver and alcohol. Your liver can only filter about 1 alcoholic drink an hour. If you drink more than that, you get drunk because your liver can't filter the alcohol fast enough. Right now, Earth is getting drunk on CO2, it can't clean itself fast enough, so levels are rising.

To be continued...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Climate change is a lie. And you have fallen for it.
Planet X, Nibiru, the Destroyer (whatever it is...comet/planet/asteroid/star) is on it's way. As it gets closer (and not yet visible), the effects on this planet will grow worse. Why do you think we are having way too many earthquakes "in various places"? All the volcanoes going off? Do you think the "weather" is causing this? I'd love to see how TPTB are going to explain that. Notice how TPTB are NOT addressing the earthquakes. Because they can't blame that on climate change. The end is coming...and I'm not being a doom sayer. I have been connecting dots for 5 years.

It will start with the floods, then tidal waves washing the coastal cities away. Eventually, we will all witness the changes in the earth, sun, moon, stars, and finally the fiery serpent will appear in the heavens. Man will fall to his knees. The earth will start quaking and popping open like a roasted chestnut. And all will be consumed in fire. Turning our planet into a glowing, burning coal........when all is said and done.....over a great deal of time......this planet will be brand new again. And mankind will have to start completely over from scratch again....being that his previous world will be dead and gone.......and the elite will be buried in their underground tombs. And the meek shall inherit the earth (something TPTB forget).

Fun stuff, huh?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
And "there will be massive increase of CO2 in the atmosphere"?... Really?... it has taken over 130 years for temperatures to increase by 1C, AND MOST OF IT IS NATURAL...


You are confusing the terms climate and weather now. Climate and weather are two different things.

Here read about it:
www.nasa.gov...


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Perhaps you missed the research I posted that shows that solar activity had been increasing for about from 85 years to 100 years or more until recently, more than it had for the past 1,000 years or more...


Nope I didn't miss that. Perhaps you missed when I said temperature data does not prove or disprove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can cause global warming?

Just because the Sun is increasing temperautres on Earth, doesn't mean CO2 is not. They both can be working together (which they are).

I am not pointing at temperature data and saying, "hey look it's caused by CO2". I am not that ignorant, I know that Earths climate is effected by many different things, the Sun being one of them, and the thickness of the atmopshere another. This means tempearature data is not a controlled observation. You have to use other logic and knowledge to know that increasing greenhouse gases increases the greanhouse effect.

Is it really that hard to understand? Increasing greenhouse gases increases the greenhouse effect. It's just so simple...


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
... the laws of light and matter?... what the heck are you talking about?... You are nothing but "DELUSIONAL"... There is no law, or laws called "the laws of light and matter"...

Do you mean the law of conservation of energy?...

SPECIFICALLY state which law, or laws you are talking about... There are NO LAWS CALLED "the laws of light and matter"...


YOU are delusional for not undertsanding what I am talking about, and grasping at straws trying to debunk me. You fail over and over.

Argueing semantics... I said LAWS, which is plural, meaning more than oen law. Light is electromagnetic radiation... electromagnetic radiation is originally described by classical laws of electricity and magnetism, and the laws of electromagnetism.

Have you ever heard of Planck's Law of radiation?? Have you ever heard of Wien's Displacement Law? What about Stefan-Boltzmann Law?What about the laws of thermodynamics?? How about the Law's of reflection? What about Snell's Law of refraction?

I was talking about physics....

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!



The laws of physics point to the reality of CO2 transmitting visible light, but absorbing infrared and near-infrared light causing the greenhouse effect. You have yet to disporve this effect. You have yet to disprove that increasing the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere creases Earth's temperature. You can't....

I can't believe I am wasting my time on you...

To be continued....









[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
i have actually proven I know what I am talking about, and you have proven not to know what the heck you are talking about...


No... just...no... All you have done is made yourself look absolutely confused. I have pointed out your flaws ever since I started talking to you. You fail constantly. All you have done is grasped at straws, argued sematnics, discredited legit sources, and misconstrued my words, and did a lot of guessing.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I know better than you the composition of Earth's atmosphere.. I have been writing about this subject for years in these forums before you arrived...


I'm sorry but ATS is not the only forum on the internet. Also, your attempt to suggest your you are some how superior becase your account is older than mine is just a hilariously pathetic tactic.

You have alrady proven that you don't know jack about the laws of phyics, so.... Yeah... fail.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, you once again forgot to include atmospheric water vapor which constitutes 1%-4% of Earth's atmosphere and it is water vapor which causes more greenhouse effect than CO2 ever will...


Like I've said 5 times already. THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO MY ARGUMENT! It doesn't matter that there are other greenhouse gases. That does not effect my argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and humans are increasing greenhouse gases on Earth.

You have just proven all you can do is go in circles... never ending loops... you ahve nothing.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, in order for CO2 to "heat up the atmosphere" noticeably it would have to absorb many times more the radiation in the form of heat from the Sun than it is able to absorb now, because it would have to heat up the particles of the other elements that make up Earth's atmosphere.


You statement is incorrect.

Like you said, there is more than one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. When CO2 absorbs and emits radiation, the radiation can be reflected in many different directions. Many of those directions are straight towards OTHER greenhouse gases. Other greenhouse gases can also emit radiations towards CO2. All these greenhouse gases work together.... So you have the same heat, but it is just staying around longer.

You are totaly ignoring what happens to the radiation that is emitted from the greenhouse gases, and then absorbed into other atmosphereic elements and gases, and then emitted again by those elements and gases... CO2 could encounter the same energy more than once after it is emitted from neighboring greenhouse gases and elements. The same energy is just staying around longer.

Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the amount of atoms that become obsticles for the heat to encounter.

I suggest you read ALL of this:
wiki.answers.com...

To be continued again....



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

Wrong! Fail yet again..

The Earth IS a closed system. However, it can be considered open only when talking about radiation energy.


Other sources that would agree;


It must suck to fail as much as you...


I really don't care how many "green" "radical environmentalist" links you keep giving...

The Earth is NOT a closed system... The Earth gets bombarded EVERY FREAKEN DAY by metorites, plasma, and other energies which are not only "radiation...

How in the world did the Earth get the water it contains?... It got it FROM OUTSIDE sources like ice comets...

Where did Earth get it's increasing mass?.... It got it from outside sources...

And to this day the Earth STILL gets matter, and energy in different forms from OUTSIDE sources...

Not to mention the fact that we know that electrons manifest in both matter/wave forms, it is the matter(particle)/wave(energy) duality in electrons, so even when the Earth is just exchanging "energy" in fact it is exchanging both matter and energy because of the particle/wave duality of electrons...


Anyway, Davisson and Germer did the experiment, and this is exactly what they found. The electron beam was reflected like a wave, rather than like particles. In other words, they found, as de Broglie had speculated, that wave­particle duality is a property not only of light (photons), but of matter as well. Electrons, protons, alpha particles, and anything else that physicists might discover.

webs.morningside.edu...

But then again geologists are not physicists so they THINK the Earth is a closed system...which it is not...

Geologists are also not astrophysicists, for the most part, hence they think that apart from the Sun, and maybe an asteroid, or a comet that the Earth is not affected by other outside forces in the Solar System, the Galaxy, or even the universe, and once again "they are wrong"...

So is the Earth a closed system?... NO...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Who cares what is heating the atmosphere? That debate is not needed to prove that large collections of CO2 could heat the atmopshere. There are many things that can heat the atmosphere. I am debating the fact that CO2 is one of them.


... Who cares?... the fact that it is a NATURAL phenomenon means that THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO...

As for your claim that CO2 heats up the atmosphere as much as AGW believers claim?... PROVE IT...

Don't show me claims... and much less "climate models" because they are flawed to a fault, and I have proven this fact dozens of times...


Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Showing me that other things can heat the atmosphere does not prove that excess CO2 created by humans can not.


And constantly claiming that CO2 causes the massive warming claimed by the AGW scientists, when those scientists were caught red handed with their pants down because they cannot provide any real evidence that CO2 causes the warming claimed by them, does not prove your point that "CO2 causes massive warming", as claimed by every AGW "believer"...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Your argument about the ocean is irrelevant. Fail again...


for years the AGW scientists, and their fervent followers have been claiming that the atmosphere has been warming the oceans and the land, when it is the oceans which have been warming the land and the atmosphere.

Again, water can store a lot more radiation in the form of heat than the atmosphere ever will. Not to mention that atmospheric radiation changes dramatically in a phew hours, while it takes a lot longer for the ocean to change from warming to cooling, or from cooling to warming. hence it is impossible for the atmosphere to heat the oceans. It is the other way around..

Sorry...but the oceans play a mayor role in Climate Change... a BIGGER role than CO2 ever will...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Actually, I explained perfectly well how a greenhouse works. I even used many sources to back up what I said, and you FAILED to read them or understand them.


no, the one not understanding how the greenhouse effect works is you... Air circulation plays a MAYOR role in why closed greenhouses, that have no fans can become warmer than it is outside... It is because the glass offers protection against the elements like the wind, and rain, meanwhile allowing sunlight to enter... If you were to open a door or a window, or if you installed a fan the temperature DROPS... If air circulation did not affect greenhouses then temperatures wouldn't drop when air is allowed to circulate...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Then, you prove to us all that you have ZERO KNOWLEDGE about how a greenhouse works.


Kid, the one that has shown "zero knowledge" is you... Using claims like "the laws of light and matter" when there is no such law called "law of light and matter"...



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
It's SICK, and DISGUSTING, that someone like you who knows NOTHING can actually sit here and try to debate about global warming. YOU are the people who deny the very REAL THREAT that our pollution causes, and YOU are a major part of the problem we face.


I am sick and disgusted as ignorant people who keep claiming atmospheric CO2 is a problem to Earth, and "it is a pollutant" when anyone with even an ounce of intelligence knows that EVERY LIVING BEING, including plants, trees, and green biomass are CARBON based, and need atmospheric CO2 to live...

Without atmospheric CO2 there wouldn't exist life on Earth...and with low concentrations of atmospheric CO2 even at 300ppm level would stunt the growth of most plant life on Earth, which would mean MORE STARVATION...

Meanwhile you keep siding with the rich elites there are real pollutants, and toxic chemicals being spilled into the oceans, and the atmosphere...

Keep drinking the "kool-aid"..



Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
I highly suggest you go back to school, take a science class, and don't try to debate about something you are clueless about.


Oh boy... you are surely hilarious...

AGAIN "expert' define, and explain to us what "Laws of light and matter" are you referring to and how it corroborates your illogical arguments... What is that? you don't know what the hell you are talking about?... I thought so....



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Reaaaally?... Again you are trying to tell us that when you open a door/windows, or when you add a fan to a greenhouse it doesn't get cooler?...


I NEVER said that... again you are putting words in my mouth, and or reading incorrectly.

You never said ANYTIHNG about opening windows or doors. All you said was "air circulation". As far as I know, air is capable of circulating when the windows and doors are closed, it's called a fan.

If you put a fan inside a sealed greenhouse to circulate the air. It will NOT cool anything. It will just push hot air around. In theory, the movement of air would cause more friction and heat.

You never mentioned opening the door and windows and letting the trapped warm air out.

YOU tried to claim Earth was an open system like a greenhouse with oepn doors and windows. That is rediculious... Earth is a closed system... it doesn't have windows and doors to let warm air out.




Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
"Major failure"?...
... so again you are telling us that when you open a window/door, or when you add a fan it doesn't get cooler inside the greenhouse?...


Again.. you never said anything about opening windows/doors, and neither did I. When you said "circulate air" I figured you were talking about ciruclating the air inside the closed windows/doors.

Again... the Earth doesn't have windows and doors. The Earth is a closed system. The air is trapped by gravity, it can't leave... You can circulate warm air all you wan't in a closed system, and it won't magically cool itself.



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I wonder why people use fans in greenhouses, and in houses....


Fans are used to move air, not cool air.




Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
"Major failure duuude"...
feels like I am talking to a teenage mutant ninja turtle...and not the one that actually knows anything about science...


Did I say "duuude"? No, you misquote me again. You made another error, and ran with it.

I feel I am talking to someoen who doesn't know how to read, and makes things up in his mind. Actually it feels more like I am talking to a brick wall.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW..in case you didn't know atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT act like a glass simply because atmospheric CO2 levels are too low to "act as a glass"...


You are again argueing semantics. You prove you have lost your debate and are now resulting to taking my words out of context, or completely ignoring the fact that I am trying to "dumb down" my words so your thick head could understand them.. You are now taking my words too seriously and are ignoring the higher meaning of them in order to try to discredit me. You are a disgrace. Your tactics are pathetic.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
In case you haven't noticed there are winds all over the world, meanwhile in a greenhouse there is no air circulation at all unless you add a fan, or open a door, or windows...


Ignorance....

Inside of a greenhouse exists mini movements of air. These mini movements of air do NOT cool any air. It is just warm air moving around. You can put a fan inside of this closed greenhouse, and STILL, there will be no cooling. It will just be warm air moving around.

The Earth is CLOSED. The Earth doesn't have doors or windows that you can open. Just because there are air movements moving around inside of Earth, it doesn't mean there is any cooling going on from it.

You ignornace of basic science is astounding.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I already EXCERPTED what people who actually have greenhouses have to say...


...and I showed how you misquoted them, and ignored major portions of the excerpt.

To be continued again...




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join