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.

 

The Church of AGW: Book of Revelations

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
These are both bad, but only significant climate change from global warming might be damaging enough to pose a threat to the reasonable survival of satisfactory technological civilization.

5 degrees C in global temperature is the difference between now and the depth of the Ice Age. Agriculture was impossible at that time. Ice was a mile thick in New York. With unrestricted greenhouse emissions we might be on track to +5C on the hot side. That could be equally catastrophic to human survival of 9 billion people. We could have 90% die-off.


I don't doubt for a minute that if we see the return to conditions comparable to the last Glacial Maximum that we will witness a severe die-off. Agriculture hadn't been developed at the time of the LGM though, and humanity survived because there was still ample plants and animal food sources to provide nourishment. We all had to move, and live in more cramped conditions certainly, but we still survived. And could again, given food and water.

Since the LGM, we have become dependent on a smaller and smaller number of selectively bred food stuffs, that are as dependent upon us as we are on them. As we are increasingly finding, in areas, such as Hungary, and Mexico, crops that have been planted for generation after generation are failing due to climate change, and because the substance of the soil has been completely eroded, particularly in Hungary, it is turning to dustbowl and is at severe risk of desertification if we do not look to do something about that. In many regions, due to the use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemical pollutants, we have caused irrevocable damage to the environment and in some cases, destroyed the continuity of the food chain.

Even by conservative estimates it would take several generations, even in a rapid flood scenario, for us to achieve the same conditions as those of the LGM. The effects of the depletion of biodiversity are already upon us, and that is why GM food sources are being considered a necessity in some regions, but even that is an elastoplast on the problem. Due to the growing number of insect predators that are currently entering extinction, we will be faced with having to use more and more pesticides to combat their unchecked numbers, which in turn will detrimentally effect those insects that we rely on for aerating the soil, and more importantly for pollination. If we do not take drastic action the only plants that will grow are those that have been genetically modified to do so. We can return from the lack of plant biodiversity, but we will seriously struggle to recover from a lack of insect diversity. And so on and so forth up the food chain. We have over fished our seas, polluted our waterways, and made our soils barren.




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by senselessness
 


Your ellipses only reveal your ignorance. Here are the actual scientific facts about The Greenhouse Effect:

The greenhouse effect is a process that can be found on Venus. Your sad attempt to link the greenhouse effect as a human induced phenomenon only shows how very little you know about climate and the greenhouse effect. Perhaps you meant to say "enhanced greenhouse effect":


What the heck are you talking about?? I never said the greenhouse effect is only a human induced phenomenon!! Where on Earth did you ever get that idea?? Do you know how to read??

The atmosphere which contains greenhouse gases existed before humans. However, HUMANS are ADDING to the greenhouse gases! That increases the greenhouse effect.

Learn to read then come back and try to debate this.
edit on 2-8-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 





What the heck are you talking about?? I never said the greenhouse effect is only a human induced phenomenon!! Where on Earth did you ever get that idea?? Do you know how to read??


Do you know how to read, and can you read what you write? This is precisely what you wrote:




Actually AGW is a proven fact... Scientific fact at that... You can't disprove the greenhouse effect.


Who do you think you're kidding? Backpedal all you want but you're not fooling a soul. Indeed that you are now backpedaling only shows that I did in fact read correctly what you wrote, which at best was poor communication, at worst foolish ignorance.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by senselessness
 


The greenhouse effect is a process that can be found on Venus. Your sad attempt to link the greenhouse effect as a human induced phenomenon only shows how very little you know about climate and the greenhouse effect. Perhaps you meant to say "enhanced greenhouse effect":

I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until you've clarified what you meant by your initial assertion. In science, it is not a good idea that I assume on your behalf that you meant to type "enhanced greenhouse effect" and that what you meant by "scientific fact" is "very likely". Reification is a logical fallacy and claiming something is a scientific fact doesn't make it so.


To answer your question, yes I was talking about the "enhanced greenhouse effect"... If you knew how to read you would know that is what I was talking about. Humans are pumping excessive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and increasing the greenhouse effect. This is a proven fact, and can not be denied.

Arguing semantics and highlighting words like "very likely" is absurd. You obviously don't have an argument so you have to argue semantics and highlight the uncertainty of a few while you totally ignore the certainty of the many.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


You're not fooling anyone other than yourself, and even if you were to have said if you knew how to read between the lines you would still be foolish since it is I who suggested that the "enhanced greenhouse effect" was what you meant instead of the sloppy use of the greenhouse effect you used. Further, while the greenhouse effect cannot be dis-proven, the "enhanced greenhouse effect" as I demonstrated is being spoken to in the language of "more than likely".

There is no room for sloppiness in science.

Further, there is a profound difference between (FACT) and "very likely". Do you even know what semantics is? This is not an I say tomato you say tomahto distinction, very likely has nothing at all to do with fact which is more than very likely it simply is.




edit on 2-8-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It wasn't a backpedal... You just didn't understand what I wrote because of some type of reading comprehension issue you have. What I said couldn't be more clear if you knew how to read things in context.

People who deny AGW are technically denying the existence of the greenhouse effect. If you can not disprove the greenhouse effect, then you can not disprove AGW. The mere existence of the greenhouse effect proves AGW is real, that is how simply this debate can be ended.

What I mean by this is...

Our atmosphere's main attribute is the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect we would all perish. The greenhouse effect is made possible by greenhouse gases. Humans are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. That means it is a fact that humans are increasing the greenhouse effect. That means humans are making the Earth warmer, and causing Earth's climate to change.

The only way anyone can disprove the above is if they somehow disprove the existence of the greenhouse effect which is impossible.


edit on 2-8-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


I have quoted precisely what you said twice now. You did not say "you can't disprove enhanced greenhouse effect". It is way past disingenuous to claim I have a reading comprehension and the worst thing about this stupidity is that you are only making the AGW sect look worse than they all ready do.

It is richly ironic you call those who are skeptical about AGW "deniers" while you keep making these silly denials.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Wow man... You are being delusional. If you would have properly read and comprehended all of my posts on this topic you would know that I have mentioned over and over that humans are increasing the greenhouse effect. That would mean I am talking about "enhanced greenhouse effect". I never once claimed humans are responsible for the greenhouse effect, that is just ridiculous, and if you got that from my posts then clearly you don't know how to read.

I even mentioned the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus multiple times. What, did you think I was talking about humans on Venus??
Wow you are lost!

Admit your fault. You don't know how to read properly. It's ok if English isn't your first language.

edit on 2-8-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


How many posts have you now spent backpedaling? If you had any thing of value to add regarding AGW, any reasonable person would think this would be your focus instead of this nonsense.

Are you asserting that "enhanced greenhouse effect" is a (FACT)? If so, prove it, and explain to us all why the IPCC is so reticent to agree with you on this (FACT)?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by senselessness
 


I have quoted precisely what you said twice now. You did not say "you can't disprove enhanced greenhouse effect". It is way past disingenuous to claim I have a reading comprehension and the worst thing about this stupidity is that you are only making the AGW sect look worse than they all ready do.

It is richly ironic you call those who are skeptical about AGW "deniers" while you keep making these silly denials.



Wow, whatever you are doing it is making you look like a total fool. You really don't understand what I am saying?? hahahahahahahaha. You had me fooled... at first you came off as intelligent with your use of words in your OP, but now I know it's just an act, and you really don't even know how to read! You really don't understand what I am saying... that is pretty sad.

I didn't need to say "you can't disprove enhanced greenhouse effect", because I took it even further and said "you can't disprove the greenhouse effect". First you must disprove the greenhouse effect, then you must disprove the enhanced greenhouse effect... I was taking it one step further than you expected, and you are stuck on that. hahahaha



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


This is my last effort I am going to make in attempting to get you back on topic. Here is what you said, one more time:




Actually AGW is a proven fact... Scientific fact at that... You can't disprove the greenhouse effect.


What exactly did you mean by "You can't disprove the greenhouse effect"?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by senselessness
 


How many posts have you now spent backpedaling? If you had any thing of value to add regarding AGW, any reasonable person would think this would be your focus instead of this nonsense.



I wasn't doing any backpedaling... I wasted multiple posts trying to explain to you what my words mean because you don't know how to read. Yet, you still can't understand where you went wrong, and accuse me of backpedaling. This is just pure stupidity.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Are you asserting that "enhanced greenhouse effect" is a (FACT)? If so, prove it, and explain to us all why the IPCC is so reticent to agree with you on this (FACT)?


YES, the "enhanced greenhouse effect" is a fact. Nobody can disprove it because they would have to disprove the "greenhouse effect" itself! You can't disprove the greenhouse effect itself, its a physical fact. This is what I have been saying in almost every post I have made in this topic.

More greenhouse gases in an atmosphere means more greenhouse effect. That is an undeniable absolute truth. YOU have to prove it is not the truth, because this has been a fact for more than 100 years.

From what I read from the IPCC... they are only hesitant to blame current climate on the increase of greenhouse gases. The only reason they are hesitant is because there are many factors that regulate climate and weather and they don't have the ability or data to conclusively prove what factor is the main cause. That however does NOT disprove that increasing greenhouse gases will increase the greenhouse effect, and humans are most definitely increasing greenhouse gases. That is something they can never deny.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 





YES, the "enhanced greenhouse effect" is a fact. Nobody can disprove it because they would have to disprove the "greenhouse effect" itself!


This is simply not true. Consider what the Austrailian Academy of Science has to say about "enhanced greenhouse effect":


The enhanced greenhouse effect and climate change Many scientists think that the increasing concentrations of these greenhouse gases has led to an increase in the world's average temperature. This is called the enhanced greenhouse effect.

While scientists agree that the levels of greenhouse gases are rising, there is less certainty about what the precise effects of this will be. To help them understand these effects, scientists use mathematical models (Box 2: What is modelling?). These models take account of many processes that together determine the behaviour of the atmosphere (eg, temperature, humidity, wind speed and atmospheric pressure). Many researchers are predicting that the world will get warmer, but exactly how much warmer or how quickly it will happen is still being debated (Box 3: Global warming and climate change).


While scientists are cautious in their language regarding "enhanced greenhouse effect" the religious zealots who worship at the church of AGW could care less for (FACTS) in the factual sense of the word and will say what they want.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by senselessness
 


This is my last effort I am going to make in attempting to get you back on topic. Here is what you said, one more time:



Actually AGW is a proven fact... Scientific fact at that... You can't disprove the greenhouse effect.


What exactly did you mean by "You can't disprove the greenhouse effect"?


Ok, I will explain it one last time....

The "greenhouse effect" is the main attribute that makes AGW possible. The only way to disprove AGW is to disprove the "greenhouse effect" itself. Do you understand that??

The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere let energy from the Sun in the form of UV, visible, and near IR radiation pass right through it without being absorbed. That energy is then absorbed into the Earth, and re-radiated back out at a different wavelength which can NOT pass through the greenhouse gases. This effectively traps heat... This process is a fact, and can not be denied.

Now, when you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, you increase the greenhouse effect described above. Humans are increasing the greenhouses gases in the atmosphere... and that results in AGW. The only way to disprove AGW is to disprove the greenhouse effect.... and "you can't disprove the greenhouse effect".
edit on 2-8-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by senselessness
 





YES, the "enhanced greenhouse effect" is a fact. Nobody can disprove it because they would have to disprove the "greenhouse effect" itself!


This is simply not true. Consider what the Austrailian Academy of Science has to say about "enhanced greenhouse effect":

While scientists are cautious in their language regarding "enhanced greenhouse effect" the religious zealots who worship at the church of AGW could care less for (FACTS) in the factual sense of the word and will say what they want.


Are you even reading your own sources? All you are doing is arguing semantics. If you want to argue semantics so be it... I can play that game...

From your source:



While scientists agree that the levels of greenhouse gases are rising, there is less certainty about what the precise effects of this will be. To help them understand these effects, scientists use mathematical models (Box 2: What is modelling?). These models take account of many processes that together determine the behaviour of the atmosphere (eg, temperature, humidity, wind speed and atmospheric pressure). Many researchers are predicting that the world will get warmer, but exactly how much warmer or how quickly it will happen is still being debated (Box 3: Global warming and climate change).


Basically, if you know how to read (which seems to be your difficulty here), they are NOT questioning the existence of the "enhanced greenhouse effect", the are only questioning the PRECISE effects. They want to be precise.

In my previous posts I stated that "AGW is a fact. The only two questions left are how fast will it warm, and how much damage will be done". At the end of your little snippet they highlight their main question... "exactly how much warmer and how quickly". That is the only debate that is left... The AGW debate ended years ago... the only thing left to debate is how much warmer and how quickly.

Your source just proved you wrong, and you don't even realize it.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 





The "greenhouse effect" is the main attribute that makes AGW possible.


At least you've gone from (FACT) to "possible", but let's look at what the Australian Academy of Science says about the greenhouse effect:


Without the greenhouse effect we would be living in a very chilly place – the world's average temperature would be minus 19°C, instead of the 14°C we are used to.


It is arguable that with an average 19 degrees Celsius without the greenhouse effect, that this greenhouse effect makes humanity possible since growing crops of food to sustain humanity would be a mite bit difficult without it.




The only way to disprove AGW is to disprove the "greenhouse effect" itself. Do you understand that??


This is simply not true. If it were the IPCC and The Australian Academy of Science, to name just two scientific organizations would be saying this themselves instead of relying on the religious zealots to say it. This is not what is being said about AGW in scientific circles. It is believed that the "enhanced greenhouse effect" is caused by humans, and again as I have clearly stated it is easy to believe that humans are contributing to this "enhanced greenhouse effect", but if it were the (FACT) you so imprudently keep claiming it is, then you would have cited some scientist saying as such instead of linking the Wikipedia article I've all ready linked.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by senselessness
 




The "greenhouse effect" is the main attribute that makes AGW possible.


At least you've gone from (FACT) to "possible",


Wow, again with semantics and your inability to read.

The greenhouse effect makes AGW possible. Without it, it would be impossible.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...but let's look at what the Australian Academy of Science says about the greenhouse effect:


Without the greenhouse effect we would be living in a very chilly place – the world's average temperature would be minus 19°C, instead of the 14°C we are used to.


It is arguable that with an average 19 degrees Celsius without the greenhouse effect, that this greenhouse effect makes humanity possible since growing crops of food to sustain humanity would be a mite bit difficult without it.




Without the greenhouse effect the world's average temperature would be -19°C. That is MINUS. That is NEGATIVE. That is BELOW ZERO.

With the greenhouse effect it is +14°C. That is PLUS. That is POSITIVE. That is ABOVE ZERO.

Did you seriously just say it would be "arguable" that the greenhouse effect makes humanity possible??


It's not arguable at all... Without the greenhouse effect everything would be frozen over. Humanity would not exist.

Are you just trolling me or what?


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The only way to disprove AGW is to disprove the "greenhouse effect" itself. Do you understand that??


This is simply not true. If it were the IPCC and The Australian Academy of Science, to name just two scientific organizations would be saying this themselves instead of relying on the religious zealots to say it.


It is true... Actually, the IPCC has been saying it, so have 1000's of scientists all over the world.

www.ipcc.ch...


The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere enhances the absorption and emission of infrared radiation.




We know that this increase is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the increase.




Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is not what is being said about AGW in scientific circles. It is believed that the "enhanced greenhouse effect" is caused by humans, and again as I have clearly stated it is easy to believe that humans are contributing to this "enhanced greenhouse effect", but if it were the (FACT) you so imprudently keep claiming it is, then you would have cited some scientist saying as such instead of linking the Wikipedia article I've all ready linked.


I don't think you have been reading / studying enough. My link from the IPCC just proved you wrong.

AGW is a fact. Enhanced Greenhouse Effect is a fact. It's all so simple... If you increase greenhouse gases, you increase the greenhouse effect. Really, there is NO ARGUMENT. This debate was over years ago.

The only people left debating are the ones that don't understand basic science, can't read well, or get stuck on semantics. Stop waiting for someone to tell you it is real. Do the experiments and calculations your self. Also, stop accusing people of just being "followers of a cult" or something similar. Nany people like my self are independent and can make conclusions our selves.
edit on 2-8-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Global climate change, global warming, call it what you will. It is an agenda based idea however you slice it! If you want to be enlightened, check this out.video.google.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


As far as I can tell it was a religious zealot who created this topic. You are in so much denial that you have created an entire topic that does nothing but argue the semantics of a few loosely worded articles, and completely dodges the FACTS surrounding the greenhouse effect. It's like you are apart of some cult of deniers who go out of their way to dismiss proven science.

I was using scientific facts to back what I was saying... and I will do it again...

1) The greenhouse effect is a fact.
IPCC "Explains" the Greenhouse Effect

2) Increasing greenhouse gases will increase the greenhouse effect. That is a fact.

"The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere enhances the absorption and emission of infrared radiation." -IPCC


3) Humans are increasing greenhouse gases. That is a fact.

"We know that this increase (of CO2) is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the increase." -IPCC

IPCC Graphs of Increases in Greenhouse Gases

From this we can conclude that humans are increasing the greenhouse effect in Earth's atmosphere which enhances the absorption of infrared radiation coming from the Earth, essentially increasing heat. That is also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Good day.
edit on 2-8-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join