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.

 

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism:

page: 8
73
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



The human world doesn't affect the natural world. Yes we should always be a bit more green. But not for earth . For our health. We don't owe earth or the universe a dam thing nor does earth or the universe owe us anything.

You all extreme greenies need to accept that we humans are not special. We're not important. As if we have some duty to the green god. Our only duty is to make the best of what we have. Worrying about our planet will take us nowhere. Unless that's where you want to go.





what you are communicating is a silly notion... you are separating the "human world" and the "natural world". it is all ONE WORLD...

and if we sh!t all over it, and strip mine it, and clear cut it, and pave it, and pollute it, and wantonly continue to exploit it and violate its balance, there will be a price to pay.

so we do owe the earth something... we owe it our respect, because without 'the earth' we don't exist.

what do you think, we live in a ~snipping~ bubble?!?



edit on 29-7-2011 by mythos because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


We already know that oil isn't a finite source!

But those Texas oil fields haven't started to fill back up yet. Maybe in a thousand years, which would be quick turn around. Probably in a million years, which is a drop in the bucket in geo time.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The guy who wrote the article is an editor for the Heartland Institute. Which advocates the Freemarket. There is also no link to any NASA study. he must of used the favorite word of ats, alarmist, about 30 times.

C'mon people, use your brain.


Heartland is also funded by ExxonMobil...

www.exxonsecrets.org...

The scientific community has overwhelmingly stated that Spencer is a hack and that the paper was a scientific atrocity...

To me, that's a smoking gun. I'm curious to see what others think about it.
edit on 29-7-2011 by grahag because: added info



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
dear op - global warming is backed up by science, that it's not as bad as some predicted is part of the great exploration and understanding process. Your theory that Al Gore is had to the NWO however is backed up by lunacy.

Luckily the atmosphere is much more complex and flexible than we give credit for but that's part of our hubris to think we know it all. That doesn't mean co2 doesn't increase the temperature it does but now we are finding out it may be just a localized warming instead of a global warming because luckily it just doesnt travel high enough to have that effect.

At the end of the day however would we be better off with electric cars that don't spew out c02 and other poisons and hopefully are efficient enough to offset other costs of building them - I say yes to that.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


That calculation does not make sense. What has individual molecule residence time in common with atmospheric CO2 concentration, or limits to it? And why are you multiplying emission mass with average molecular residence time?

If you fill the pool with one hose, and empty it with another smaller hose, it is still possible to fill it without any limit, even when average individual molecule residence time is much smaller than the time it takes the pool to fill (and is certainly not infinite).


But if you fill the pool with 27 equal diameter hoses, then regulate the flow of, or even shut off altogether, just ONE of those hoses, will the rest suddenly, magically, cease to fill the pool?

What he's saying is that CO2 emissions from human activity are but one of the hoses filling the pool, and a minor one at that.

It's like spitting in the ocean. No whales will drown if you do, and none will survive just because you don't. The ocean will remain and change as it ever has.




edit on 2011/7/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
This raises a point about greenies and those that say we must save the planet.

When EVER have you seen them out cleaning up the streets, tracks and waterways of your country?

When?

They are hot air hypocrites every one of them. I will apologise if some one can prove to me greenies go out every week as part of their belief and actually 'look after' the planet where they live.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mythos
 


I separate the two because if worse case scenario we launch every nuclear bomb burn every drop of oil , strip down every mountain and mine every rock of coal , eventually this planet will sort itself out and scrape off our human residue. Like we do with mosquitoes. And that's my point. Your too self-centered, egotistical ; you think your so important you have some connection with this universe. You don't , None , zilch, nada... Get it.


This planet has dealt with far more ,far worse than human scientific invention influencing this planet. Lol!!!!

And what price is there to pay other then you own life? Nothing else. So that proves my point(logic my friend) to split the two. This planet or any planet now or in the far future is in no way shape or form affected by us. We mite pollute our surrounding and in return it mite bite us in the ass, but that's it . Get it... Its us that will get hurt . Not earth..and it's also not earth fighting back,,lol. We pollute and then we consume what we pollute. Its us that we are hurting. We get cancer not earth.


Your right with out earth we wouldn't exist ,, but if it weren't for our moon we really wouldn't have existed. So screw earth. What we should never do is mess with the moon, cause then we really have to leave.


So your snipping bubble comment is childish. I am stating the truth which you have a very hard time accepting.


And don't take my word for it. Time will tell. I'll tell you what,, let's bet that man is going to use every drop oil , mine strip every mineral and still earth is here alive and kicking after and way way into the future,, with us or without. And your dreaming that humans won't consume every resource. We will ,,,,,,,get use to it and accept it. Its human nature. There is nothing wrong with it.


There is no one world. Humans invented that. You think your special ??? why don't you ask the people from Otsuchi, Japan if they think humans are special. The natural world will always trump the human world.


One world,,,tssssss,, what a joke.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 

I agree its purely science and that the amount of change effected by man is hard to decipher, but for anyone to say it isn't happening is just insane when there are proofs all over the world. Global warming IS happening. IS man to blame? That's an entirely different matter.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by daggyz
They are hot air hypocrites every one of them. I will apologise if some one can prove to me greenies go out every week as part of their belief and actually 'look after' the planet where they live.


Maybe they don't in your country but they certainly do around here...

www2.btcv.org.uk...

edit on 29-7-2011 by Crayfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Only a couple of links from only one site, I can find more if you want me to...

"After a 10,000-year absence, wildfires have returned to the Arctic tundra, and a University of Florida study shows that their impact could extend far beyond the areas blackened by flames.

In a study published in the July 28 issue of the journal Nature, UF ecologist Michelle Mack and a team of scientists including fellow UF ecologist Ted Schuur quantified the amount of soil-bound carbon released into the atmosphere in the 2007 Anaktuvuk River fire, which covered more than 400 square miles on the North Slope of Alaska’s Brooks Range. The 2.1 million metric tons of carbon released in the fire — roughly twice the amount of greenhouse gases put out by the city of Miami in a year — is significant enough to suggest that Arctic fires could impact the global climate, said Mack, an associate professor of ecosystem ecology in UF’s department of biology."
source:
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...

"Flooding is commonplace in Bangladesh, perhaps more so than any other country in the world. The physical setting has always made it prone to flooding but in more recent years the magnitude and impact of flooding has become more severe."
source;
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...

"Liu Chunmei, mayor of Wenchang, said the city authorities had evacuated more than 27,700 people from coastal fish farms, fishing boats, makeshift housing as well as from low-lying regions and areas downstream of dangerous reservoirs. The local authorities were releasing water from major reservoirs as water levels rose amid heavy rains."
source:
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...

"The heaviest downpour in a century devastated the country’s central regions triggering multiple landslides and floods that killed at least 38 people and left 8 others missing. Flood waters inundated main roads, residential areas and basement facilities in and around Seoul, cutting the power supply at 14,000 homes and leaving thousands of vehicles submerged on flooded roads."
source:
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...

"All of South Texas, parts of which the United States Drought Monitor reports are currently suffering from an extreme to exceptional drought, will welcome at least an inch of rain from Don. Rainfall totals near and just north of where Don moves inland are forecast to equal or exceed 4 inches. While putting a serious dent in the drought, that amount of rain could easily trigger dangerous flash flooding."
source:
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...

"Officials declared a disaster in Dominica, after rainfall caused a dam to fail Wednesday night. It appears several inches of rain fell in a few hours during big thunderstorms. That rainfall was channeled down the mountainside into a small reservoir, overtopping the dam.

This region has received multiple rounds of heavy showers and thunderstorms so far this summer. Flooding could affect the local economy because one third of laborers on the island work in agriculture."
Source:
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...

"Russia on Thursday sweltered in abnormally hot summer weather as the emergency services sought to control expanding countryside blazes to prevent a repeat of last year’s devastating wildfires. The central city of Volgograd was Russia’s hottest city with temperatures hovering above 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) for the past few days, hotter than Cairo, Tashkent, Tehran and New Delhi, weather forecasters said."
source:
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...


No there's nothing to worry about at all (?!?!)....dead set some people are idiots!

x
peace



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AussieAmandaC
 


Who are the idiots?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


well I went with 4 square feet per person. that gives us a square of 32 mi. x 32 mi. or if you go to a cube or a "box" wich I assume he meant, it is just over 1mi^3 or a box 1 mile x 1 mile x 1 mile. at 7B people using 4 square feet of floor space and averaging 6 feet tall. Now if we "pack and stack" yes we could do it in less than a 1 mile Cube. however, neither of these prospects seems very comfortable or sanitary.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


But those other 26 hoses are perfectly balanced by 26 equal drains (oceanic CO2 cycle), so the result is no increase over time. Your added hose, while a lot smaller, is not balanced by any equal drain (fossil CO2). Over time it will increase the water level. The net effect is important.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 

That calculation does not make sense. What has individual molecule residence time in common with atmospheric CO2 concentration, or limits to it?

Because that's how long anthropogenic CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere before absorption.


And why are you multiplying emission mass with average molecular residence time?

That is not what I am doing. If I were to multiply the natural emissions of 771gtons/year by the atmospheric residence time of 3.8 years for a CO2 molecule I would have arrived at the calculation of 771*3.8 = 2929. Clearly that is not what I did, is it? What I did, is I took the average residence time for a CO2 molecule given by the IPCC to calculate how long anthropogenic CO2 can remain in the atmosphere before it is absorbed. The IPCC present the following formula in AR4 to calculate residence time: T = M/S. Where T stands for residence time, M stands for atmospheric mass and S is the rate of removal. Hence when we plug the IPCC's figures into that equation we get: 3000/771 = 3.8 years. Anthropogenic CO2 emissons are 29gtons/year. Therefore 29*3.8 = 110gtons/13.75ppm. Thus 13.75ppm is the theoretical maximum amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time. Since the sinks should not discriminate between anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2 that residence time holds for all CO2 (apart from CO2 with C14 which the sinks do discriminate against. I gather this discrimination is due to kinetic absorption and dissolution differences).


If you fill the pool with one hose, and empty it with another smaller hose, it is still possible to fill it without any limit, even when average individual molecule residence time is much smaller than the time it takes the pool to fill (and is certainly not infinite).

Sorry, I don't follow you. The residence time is the limit that anthropogenic CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere before it is absorbed and we already know that is 3.8 years corresponding to a maximum of 110gtons/13.75ppm. Of course, as a counterargument, the IPCC posit that anthropogenic CO2 is simply swapping with CO2 molecules in the ocean at the ratio of approximately 40:60 because the surface oceans have a bottle-neck due to the supposed long diffusion time of CO2 to the bottom of the oceans. But this has been rebutted (Segalstad 1998) because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year. Apparently the IPCC says this process takes 500 years.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

This study is nothing but junk science put out by a propagandist paid large amounts of money to discredit gloda. warming, and you people are all members of the choir.


Really?... Care to prove it?...

BTW giving the opinion of AGW die hard scientists is laughable after it has been proven that AGW die hard scientists have been lying to us, and publishing false information and data as they have been trying to push for their opinionated BS, and in case you didn't know Dr. Roy Spencer has a PhD in Metereology and a Bachelors in atmospheric sciences. Even a left wing source such as wikipedia has this to say about Spencer...


Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASAs Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer's research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.
...

en.wikipedia.org...(scientist)

So now YOU PROVE that Spencer is "a paid propagandist", which of course is nothing but a lie from someone who doesn't have an argument...



edit on 30-7-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by anon72
 

The best line the right can have on this is not to deny its even happening...it is, get over it, but to instead try to solve the issue verses just slow it down...the left is saying slowing it down will somehow solve it, and that is flawed also.


What makes anyone think that the climate of the last 20,000 years 8s the "correct" one?

Homo sapiens is an insignificant part of Earth's biomass. As soon as we leave a mess we created to Nature, Nature reclaims here property. The underlying assumption that people can control nature is the myth underlying all of the AGW religion.

When we get over our own assumed "greatness." we can address the more realistic goal of adaptation.

Until then, we are spinning our collective wheels,

jw



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nenothtu
 


But those other 26 hoses are perfectly balanced by 26 equal drains (oceanic CO2 cycle), so the result is no increase over time. Your added hose, while a lot smaller, is not balanced by any equal drain (fossil CO2). Over time it will increase the water level. The net effect is important.


That's just plain bad science. The ecosystem will handle recycling any amount of native material, and always has. It's not possible to put more carbon into the system than is already there, without an external source like a pure carbon asteroid hitting the Earth - which would be a degree more troublesome than just a bit of "global warming".

What this debate revolves around is not how much carbon is there, but where it is in that cycle. 27 hoses cannot pump more than 26, or even one, if it's not there to be pumped. CO2 levels have historically fluctuated between free and bound, and at the present time we are in a lean patch, where there is LESS CO2 in the free part of the cycle, and MORE in the bound part, than is the historical norm.

There is more to it than merely the oceanic CO2 cycle, which produces carbonates locked into rock, like limestone, and petroleum in the deep anaerobic parts of the ocean. The terrestrial cycle is more relevant to this context, in which carbon gets bound up in living organisms on the surface, to be re-release at some future point. Perhaps oddly, the forests, as carbon sinks, have become more active in recent times. They have become measurably denser, while not increasing their area, for a net gain in the carbon sink.

It's really a fascination and complex cycle, with a lot more variables than either of us has touched upon. The one thing that is constant, however, is that it's a closed system. You can't get more out of it than is there to be gotten, and you can't put more in to it than it has a capacity to absorb. Right now, and for the past few million years, more is in the bound state than in the free state than has been the case for most of geological history.

Those other 26 hoses are NOT perfectly balanced by drain sinks. The drains currently are a lot bigger than they have historically been, which is why free CO2 levels are very near an all-time low.




edit on 2011/7/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




The ecosystem will handle recycling any amount of native material, and always has.


Yes. Over time, not immidiately. But how much time?

The question is: Will the sinks (organic absorption, POC) be able to adapt to sudden increase caused by humans releasing all carbon bound in fossil fuels (which has been steadily accumulating for 100 000s of years) in merely 200-300 years, so that no catastrophic increase will happen?



Those other 26 hoses are NOT perfectly balanced by drain sinks. The drains currently are a lot bigger than they have historically been, which is why free CO2 levels are very near an all-time low.


Its true that CO2 levels were higher in the past, but thats not the point, now they are not, and the climate, ecosystem, as well as humanity is adapted to current levels.
The absolute value of atmospheric CO2 is not that important, the rate of change caused by this sudden and systematic release of all fossil bound carbon is whats disturbing. Its almost analogous to monetary inflation/deflation. Its all right if the prices double during 50 years, everyone has time to adapt and wages have time to increase accordingly etc. But its a very big problem if they double in 1 year.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Again, your calculations are wrong. You are confusing apples with oranges. You are confusing atmospheric residence time of CO2 mass "pulse" with current average atmospheric residence time of one CO2 molecule. Completely different concepts.

Both the ~5 year and ~1000 year residence times are correct. They are measurements of different things. The former is calculation of the average lifetime of a typical CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. The latter is how long it would take an increase in CO2 level to fall back to where it started. The former is cca 5 years, the latter is cca 500 years. The IPCC clearly makes this distinction, and the formula you cite applies only to the latter.

Here is a thread discussing the concept if you want to read more about it:
solarcycle24com.proboards.com...

And while the POC absorbtion is a good point, it does not establish any hard "ceiling" beyond which CO2 cannot rise, it may merely explain away the missing CO2 sink, or is making the rise less steep. Still the measured rate of increase is enough to be alarming, even with this additional sink.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
When we get over our own assumed "greatness." we can address the more realistic goal of adaptation.


I assume you live in a non-air conditioned cave...otherwise such a comment about adaptation would be hypocritical of course



Face it, we are done with adaptation, have been done since the bronze age. Now its all about air conditioning, pre-packaged foods, sunblock, umbrella's, automobiles, etc etc etc...basically adaptation is now controlled to have the environment adapt to our preferences.

I am simply suggesting we kickstart the next logical step.

Keep in mind, nature is both a lush jungle, and a vast desert...




top topics



 
73
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join