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.

 

Past Climate Change

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11

Gee, I becomes clear where you stand. But calling it a fact just puts you at the same level of the alarmists, I actually agree that the human race is we, human race has a major responsibility regarding climate change just because we are the only ones that can take any action against the situation and are probably the major cause (not the minor player you attempt to pass as a fact). But this will all be moot soon, a few more years and this will be completely unfixable, so there is really no point on discussing the problem no one will act, I only hope people remember who took positions only on the first Rio conference about the Oceans and at Kyoto.

My advice to people is to get out of Holland, coastal India and check out a good high spot in the Russian Siberia and once there to start planting cereals, that at least will keep you well at least for another 50 years, then it will be time for soy-lent green...


We are the major cause really?... and what EVIDENCE do you have for that?...

You are actually saying mankind is more powerful than nature, Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, the galaxy and the entire Universe, and multiverses.

Does my statement above bring some clarity to what you are trying to claim?... Because that's exactly what you, and the rest of the AGW crowd have been claiming all along. Your crowd has been so certain that even articles have come up from your side of the fence claiming mankind is stronger than the Sun itself...

There is not one iota of proof that mankind is responsible in any way shape or form on changing the global climate...NONE...

All that the so called "scientists" who have been behind the bandwagon of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) have to offer are rigged GCMs, which are computer models set up to say whatever you want them to say, nothing more, nothing less.

The climate on Earth has been ALWAYS changing. It NEVER stops changing, and there have ben certainly warmer climate changes than the one the Earth is still going through.

As a matter of fact there have been two recent Climate Changes which have been warmer than the modern warm, the Medieval, and the Roman Warm Periods.

Some other members and I have been posting for years the fact that these two past Climate Changes, along many others, have been warmer than the modern warming, and the levels of atmospheric CO2 during those two periods was a lot lower than now.

It is also a very well known FACT that the areas that have incurred the most warming are areas FAR AWAY from sources of anthropogenic CO2, even NASA has had to admit that. Do you understand what that means?


...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
...

www.nasa.gov...

Not to mention the fact that the oceans, and landmasses have been warming for much longer than the levels of atmospheric CO2 were rising.

In general the Earth has been warming in modern times since the end of the Little Ice Age.

All this means that CO2 is not the cause of the warming.

To top it off it is a known fact that atmospheric CO2 is oxygen for all green biomass on Earth, and the AGW crowd want to sequester atmospheric CO2 when it is another known fact that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present all green biomass on the planet grow, flourishes, and produces more harvests than at the present levels.

People who own green houses in fact increase the atmospheric CO2 content of their greenhouses to levels around 1,200ppm - 1,500ppm which increase the yields of all plants from 25% - 60%...

Right now atmospheric CO2 content is around 380 - 390ppm...


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Yet the AGW crowd want to sequester atmospheric CO2 which will mean MORE STARVATION worldwide by humans, and animals as a whole...

So, everyone of you who agree with the AGW crowd are siding with those people who in general want population control by force. In this case by starving to death billions of people...


edit on 9-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


The sun and man, think on all the heat that we generate daily not only by our change on reflective and absorbing natural surfaces, and natural accumulators like water but on how we spend energy what the energy that is lost in a combustion engine "Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%". Considering that most of all generators of energy are internal combustion engines from coal plants to diesel engines, that 80% is lost as heat (and at a very low level vibration), but all human activities use and generate heat, as car travels, as we use light from candle to bulb, as we prepare our food or heat our homes, the numbers should be astronomical on the impact we have in adding energy to the environment at all the range of the spectrum (radio, microwaves, lazer, infrared).


edit on 8-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


Which has nothing to do with atmospheric heating and everything to do with urban heat island effect. It doesn't penetrate past the first 10m.

You can prove this very easily and schoolkids have done just that. All you need to do is drive from your home (if you live in an urban area or the suburbs) to the country. I guarantee you the temperature out there will be at least 5 degrees cooler and possibly closer to 10. Why? Because of the lack of cars, roads, heavy industry, and people.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


bathtub theory

"humans add methane into the environment that normally, under natural processes, otherwise would not have been added."

tru or false ?

of course there are natural sources for methane, and natural sources for it to be absorbed by earth

but humans are tipping the scales, and altering the natural balance of things

there is no debating that simple fact

bathtub theory


Get it out of your head that there is balance in nature. That's a myth made up by environmentalists to get everyone to believe that we're parasites on the planet. We're not.

Nature is brutal. There's nothing cozy about it. You either adapt or you die. That's the way it's been for 4 billion years and it's not going to change just because we're here.

Now, does that mean we should pollute it? Of course not, and I don't think many people would say that we should.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
professor muller never gets any discussion from the skeptics. I guess it's because he was one, hired to dispute global warming, but after getting rid of bias in the data and lower quality readings and crunching billions of temperature readings, he came to the inescapable conclusion, the planet is getting warmer, and humans play a role

Muller was never a skeptic. Can you prove that he was?


oh, and he's a fancy prfessor, not an ignorant dummy like me


I don't think humans are the most significant contributor to global warming, but it is the only contribution we can do something about, and we really should !!!


Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean that we should. The Law of Unintended Consequences and all that. Do you really believe that it's not okay to pollute the planet but it's perfectly fine to use it as a giant, worldwide, unsupervised science experiment?


there are only 3 choices in this discussion. humans pumping an UNNATURAL source of CO2, methane and literally thousands of other pollutants into the atmosphere is;

A) benefical to the atmosphere
B) damaging to the atmosphere
C) has literally a 0.00000% impact on the environment


The atmosphere couldn't care less. And guess what. The planet is on its 4th atmosphere. We didn't always have such a nitrogen/oxygen rich one. The first life evolved in an anaerobic world and a lot of it was in fact killed off when bacteria invented photosynthesis. To this day oxygen is a metabolic poison to many organisms, including us in high amounts.

Back where was many times the amount of CO2 as there is now, trees grew to amazing heights and lushness. It is plant food, pure and simple.


so what do you choose professor ? do you really think it is either beneficial or has a literal 0.00000% change ?

False dichotomy.






posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


bathtub theory

"humans add methane into the environment that normally, under natural processes, otherwise would not have been added."

tru or false ?


Proof? You'd have to figure out which methane is human-caused (just like trying to sort of human CO2 from natural). Can you do that?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


The sun and man, think on all the heat that we generate daily not only by our change on reflective and absorbing natural surfaces, and natural accumulators like water but on how we spend energy what the energy that is lost in a combustion engine "Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%". Considering that most of all generators of energy are internal combustion engines from coal plants to diesel engines, that 80% is lost as heat (and at a very low level vibration), but all human activities use and generate heat, as car travels, as we use light from candle to bulb, as we prepare our food or heat our homes, the numbers should be astronomical on the impact we have in adding energy to the environment at all the range of the spectrum (radio, microwaves, lazer, infrared).


edit on 8-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


Can you show me what a turbocharger is as related to CO2 and explain the mechanism by which it works? Because if there is such a thing as a turbocharger in relation to greenhouse gases, it's water vapor, not CO2.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I was going to make a new thread, but this seems to fit so well into yours, I decided to join the discussion.

This is a paper posted 01/06/2012 at Cornell University Library:

Excerpt from the abstract:


The proposed model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn. We show that the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the proposed harmonic model is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850-1950, and vice versa. The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10-10.5, 20-21 and 60-62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations. Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century. By combining this corrected trend with the natural cycles, we show that the temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle. The same IPCC projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3-1.2 K by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0-3.6 K projected warming.


In other words, there are cycles which we have no control over which seem to have a much larger influence than us humans.

From the paper itself:


It was observed that there is a good synchrony of frequency and phase between multiple astronomical cycles with periods between 5 to 100 years and equivalent cycles found in the climate system. We refer to those works for details and statistical tests. The major hypothesized mechanism is that the planets, in particular Jupiter and Saturn, induce solar or heliospheric oscillations that induce equivalent oscillations in the electromagnetic properties of theupper atmosphere. The latter induces similar cycles in the cloud cover and in the terrestrial albedo forcing the climate to oscillate in the same way.The soli/lunar tidal cyclical dynamics also appears to play an important role in climate change at specific frequencies


There are numerous charts, graphs, and maths which all support the hypothesis and help demonstrate that there are largrer influences at work than us mere humans.

All of that being said, we can do a MUCH better job of shepherding our planet and resources than we have. There seems to be a tremendous amount of disrespect for the natural world when progress is placed as as higher priority than the environment we find ourselves in. There are so many ways things could be changed but they would take much of the control and ability to profit away from the system that it is not very likely to happen any time soon.

See my posts in the below referenced thread:

Fountains of Methane 1000m across Erupt From Arctic Ice!

They discuss other possibilities as well, including the larger role water vapor plays in regulating temperature and the possibility of deep ocean warming being due to geological processes which are little understood. There is also a post which implicates space dust as a major contributor to the previous warming cycle.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





You are actually saying mankind is more powerful than nature, Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, the galaxy and the entire Universe, and multiverses. Does my statement above bring some clarity to what you are trying to claim?... Because that's exactly what you, and the rest of the AGW crowd have been claiming all along. Your crowd has been so certain that even articles have come up from your side of the fence claiming mankind is stronger than the Sun itself... There is not one iota of proof that mankind is responsible in any way shape or form on changing the global climate...NONE...


Yes mankind is more powerful than nature, because our intellect can be directed and used to shape nature at an exponentially increasing level. Nature is not intelligent or directed it is mostly random (chaos theory) and reactive (like karma, each action generates a reaction).

I have better prof for my point of view that you haver will ever have in attempting to prove a negative.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Yet the AGW crowd want to sequester atmospheric CO2 which will mean MORE STARVATION worldwide by humans, and animals as a whole...


Had you read carefully my posts you would have noticed that I have stated that this solutions are utterly unpractical, the best approaches I've seen was iron mining the oceans and increase reflective surfaces (create water vapor and even replace missing glaciers with white paint like it is now being done in South America to protect vanishing water ways...



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 




Which has nothing to do with atmospheric heating and everything to do with urban heat island effect. It doesn't penetrate past the first 10m.


Nothing is lost all is transformed, you are stating that the effect disappears beyond a given distance (10m m=miles ?), vanish without any other implication. You fail to take in consideration how we add energy to the environment, for instance in transmitting geothermal energy, burning coal, oil and all industrial and agricultural processes, and we are only referring to heat. I would agree that the urban heat island effect is a great demonstrator of the premise but it should not be used to limit the implications...
edit on 9-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Can you show me what a turbocharger is as related to CO2 and explain the mechanism by which it works? Because if there is such a thing as a turbocharger in relation to greenhouse gases, it's water vapor, not CO2.


I'm not a mechanical engineer but my believe is that turbo charging results from the compression of oxygen in a combustion, so the result would seem to be CO2 not water vapor...

Notice that I have provided the link to the source you may inquire there for further information.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


That argument doesn't hold water
it doesn't explain why there were much warmer periods long before man was burning fossil fuels.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Can you show me what a turbocharger is as related to CO2 and explain the mechanism by which it works? Because if there is such a thing as a turbocharger in relation to greenhouse gases, it's water vapor, not CO2.


I'm not a mechanical engineer but my believe is that turbo charging results from the compression of oxygen in a combustion, so the result would seem to be CO2 not water vapor...

Notice that I have provided the link to the source you may inquire there for further information.


That's great, because turbocharging as you're using it actually REDUCES CO2. Not that you even understand what it is that you posted--it sounded great, so you use it as "proof."

www.turbodynamics.co.uk...

Turbocharging as alarmists use it means that CO2 increases the warming effect. Which is doesn't. Water vapor is an excellent "turbocharger", not CO2. The warming effect from CO2 is minuscule.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11

Nothing is lost all is transformed, you are stating that the effect disappears beyond a given distance (10m m=miles ?)


10 METERS. As in 32.8 feet.


, vanish without any other implication. You fail to take in consideration how we add energy to the environment, for instance in transmitting geothermal energy, burning coal, oil and all industrial and agricultural processes, and we are only referring to heat. I would agree that the urban heat island effect is a great demonstrator of the premise but it should not be used to limit the implications...
edit on 9-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


What we're doing is taking carbon that's locked up and releasing it. There's no change in the total energy. It's a simple chemical reaction.
edit on 1/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





You are actually saying mankind is more powerful than nature, Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, the galaxy and the entire Universe, and multiverses. Does my statement above bring some clarity to what you are trying to claim?... Because that's exactly what you, and the rest of the AGW crowd have been claiming all along. Your crowd has been so certain that even articles have come up from your side of the fence claiming mankind is stronger than the Sun itself... There is not one iota of proof that mankind is responsible in any way shape or form on changing the global climate...NONE...


Yes mankind is more powerful than nature, because our intellect can be directed and used to shape nature at an exponentially increasing level. Nature is not intelligent or directed it is mostly random (chaos theory) and reactive (like karma, each action generates a reaction).

I have better prof for my point of view that you haver will ever have in attempting to prove a negative.



Wow, that is the height of arrogance, to think that we are more powerful than nature.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
...
Yes mankind is more powerful than nature, because our intellect can be directed and used to shape nature at an exponentially increasing level. Nature is not intelligent or directed it is mostly random (chaos theory) and reactive (like karma, each action generates a reaction).

I have better prof for my point of view that you haver will ever have in attempting to prove a negative.



Really?... Oh yeah...sure we have seen how mankind is more powerful than nature on the fact that we CAN'T stop hurricanes, we CAN'T stop earthquakes, we CAN'T stop natural disasters from occurring...but you claim we can, so go ahead and prove so... Last time I checked even the AGW scientists have been caught wrong time and again, and they have had to change their predictions...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11

Had you read carefully my posts you would have noticed that I have stated that this solutions are utterly unpractical, the best approaches I've seen was iron mining the oceans and increase reflective surfaces (create water vapor and even replace missing glaciers with white paint like it is now being done in South America to protect vanishing water ways...


NONE of that is going to change the Global climate. Just like cities do not change the regional temperature or climate. This can be proven by the fact that once you leave a city the temperature changes.

What people like you are claiming is similar to a couple of ants telling each other the climate is changing because a human is using a magnifying glass to burn the ants... Of course, to the ants it seems logical and they believe it since it is happening to them, but they can't understand that the climate outside the influence of the magnifying glass is a lot less hotter than the areas where the ants are moving. And the ants will believe "the climate is changing" to their deaths, which is exactly what the AGW crowd believe. They can't comprehend for the life of them that mankind is NOT more powerful than nature, the Sun, the Solar System, and the Universe/Multiverses...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
We don't live under a glass dome, gases do leave our atmosphere into space.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


How can something that boosts oxygen consumption on a combustion generate less CO2 ? The combustion uses the excess oxygen (to what is normally required) to generate more power. You seem to be looking at post-combustion uses, and the general effect that turbo compression will indeed decrease the consumption of fuel to generate the same power but only very recently have electronic permitted to more broadly use the technology (depending on the driving stats), since the compression can only be performed at specific instances and not constantly since it also increases the engine's mechanical stress and temperature.

edit on 10-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


10 meters seems very small since you used it to indicate the distance the heat island effect of a city.



What we're doing is taking carbon that's locked up and releasing it. There's no change in the total energy. It's a simple chemical reaction.


Agree, the fuel is an energy accumulator (that itself consumed energy to form), but as one uses energy it is dispersed in various ways for instance motion losses energy to several processes, friction, etc. almost all will end in heat. Now we burn a huge amount of fossil fuels, even considering the cycle to replenish it (very slowly) there is a lot of energy that builds on the environment, mostly as heat (heat can be ruggedly described as the energy of the vibration in mater and ultraviolet radiation) .

edit on 10-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join