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.

 

Obama calls climate change the ‘global threat of our time’ in Berlin address.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaneOfQuo
reply to post by HauntWok
 



beyond repair, already, global climate change has increased the global temperature. and it is due in a large part to the effect we have on the environment.


Wow soo false, you can almost trick people to think its true.

Did you know a single volcanic eruption spit more green house gases into the atmosphere then the entire human civilization has since he 1800's or the industrial revolution.

Hope has the earth coped with such natural processes for millions of years, god forbid the last couple hundred...

Terrorism can start and perpetuate wars that can end all life on this planet....get your priorities straight buckaroo


Not sure why you received so many stars for such a false claim

The world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by humans

Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years.

Also human put other such green house gasses into the atmosphere which Volcano's do not

Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide Laughing gas (N2O)
Fluorinated gases ("F gases")
Tetrafluoromethane
Hexafluoroethane
Sulfur hexafluoride
Sulfur fluoride
Trifluoromethane
tetrafluoroethane
Difluoroethane

news.discovery.com...




posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Good point. Thanks for that.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I guess nobody got the memo....

Everyone has to understand how politically charged this subject has become and what that does to both the release of factual information and the cover-up of anything in academia that counters the mainstream.


Scientists have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases during periods of warming. However, an increase in temperature always precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, which generally occurs decades or centuries after any change of temperature. We have not observed an increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide to have preceded a period of warming. This latter phenomenon occurs because when oceans absorb more heat from an increase in the amount of direct solar irradiance incident upon the Earth's surface, they release more Carbon Dioxide molecules into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, most drastic increases in CO2 concentration occur decades or centuries after the oceans have warmed up. For example, the present increase of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was caused by an extraordinary increase in solar activity in 1998 which warmed up the El Niño South Atlantic Oceanic Oscillation.


Source

Please stop blaming CO2, that ship has sailed. The only reason anyone still tries to say it's CO2 is to keep their jobs, grant money from the governments / universities and so the governments have a gas that ties itself to money and a way that people and businesses can be taxed. How much money has Al Gore made on this? Right....


As for REAL science... how about the ice cores from 400K years ago from Lake Vostok, which not a single scientist has yet debated because they CAN'T. CO2 slows down the rate in which the planet can cool off, but is not the initial cause of the temperature increasing, and this has been demonstrated consistently across the 400,000 years sampled in the cores and undisputed yet ignored by most scientists in favor of "models" that fit their agendas.


In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.


Source

I have no dog in this fight other than to present different information and perspective. I'm not going to get into any arguments with anyone about this, I only encourage others to look at the data themselves. You can download the Vostok raw data directly and interrogate it yourself if you take issue with someone else presenting it. Please don't shoot the messenger.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
For Centuries maybe longer Kings & queens of old dreamed of a day they could tax the great unwashed for the inalienable right to breathe air on the planet they were born upon.

Now finally that dream has nearly come to full fruition, the brand new
globalwarmingclimatechangecarbontaxandanythingelsewedecidetodreamupwheninameetingwithalgore
tomakemoremoneyandpower tax is upon us.

Breathing never used to be something I worried about, not like paying my food, water bill, electric, gas or winter fuel bill (so sorry for needing to keep warm when it's -2 out) well I suppose I had better get used to paying for the air I breathe as it appears there will now be an extra bill to worry about along with the others.


edit on 21-6-2013 by BlackCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I have two worries that seemingly haven't been addressed in depth. Maybe that's because they needn't be.

One, the worries about Climate Change (When did it switch from Global Warming) are based on models and predictions. I remember books and articles in the 1970-80 era which warned us about an ice age due to the same concerns people are having now. There is a fair amount of controversy over the current models, why should we trust them to accurately predict future results when they have no explanation for the last 15-20 years of nearly no warming?

Two, the discussion seems to be centered on Capitalism and the US. I would be more impressed if we looked at the countries which produced the most "Pollution per Unit of Output." Has there been any pressure on China or other countries? I haven't seen it. Rather, the pressure seems to be on the richer countries. That makes me suspicious of the underlying motives.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Indigo5
 


A reinforced concrete home can be built for near the same price as a stick built house. It can incorporate strips for nailing siding on. It may not be the best choice for up north here where there is a lot of cold weather but it would work great down in those areas mid country. It would also lower air conditioning costs. A normal roof system could be added to the concrete slab flat roof.

If I lived down south I would build that sort of house for the cooling effect alone. The inside could be finished with a cement plaster and be smother than drywall. I'd install a generator in a cement outbuilding also.


We got a fairly cold climate and all houses are basicly from stone. They got dual walls and inbetween the walls space for insulation material which keep the houses isolated/warm & of course it's good for your energy bill.
Basicly if a house doesn't got this not many will want to buy that house.

Picture:
www.energie-subsidies.nl...
edit on 23-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I have two worries that seemingly haven't been addressed in depth. Maybe that's because they needn't be.

One, the worries about Climate Change (When did it switch from Global Warming) are based on models and predictions. I remember books and articles in the 1970-80 era which warned us about an ice age due to the same concerns people are having now. There is a fair amount of controversy over the current models, why should we trust them to accurately predict future results when they have no explanation for the last 15-20 years of nearly no warming?

Two, the discussion seems to be centered on Capitalism and the US. I would be more impressed if we looked at the countries which produced the most "Pollution per Unit of Output." Has there been any pressure on China or other countries? I haven't seen it. Rather, the pressure seems to be on the richer countries. That makes me suspicious of the underlying motives.


There isn't much doubt about the models, but rather how fast things go. Basicly all climate scientists are not in doubt. But the people all know it better then them and refuse to believe it.
So far the US didn't wanted to cut carbon emmessions basicly the number one reason Climate Change Conferences failed.
But sure you right taxing carbon's emmessions isn't the best sollution but in this world only when money is involved things can be done it seems.
So now carbon's emmessions only went up and are going up and things go much faster (climate change) then even the scientists thought.
edit on 23-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join