It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
All I had to do was watch the china olympics several years ago to see that black smog. Heck everyone was talking about it on the television. its no secret. black smog is not just co2. but heck I guess china can pollute all they want since the bilderbergers think it is a good idea to destroy the west.
Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.
In the 1950s a new type of smog, known as photochemical smog, was first described.
This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.
Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.
This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:
nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles. Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.
Originally posted by Kali74
Phage has already run circles around you with that theory of yours, I don't need to... plus he's better at it.
As for the rest...
I can't have a logical debate when being met with such profound illogic.
Originally posted by Kali74
You're are lacking some serious logic to be able to make that statement. How do you suppose climatology works to begin with? How did you miss the largest part of it, that climatologists look at climate change in earth's past to compare against our current climate change. Each climate epoch had a catalyst, something that instigated the change.
The goal has never been to eliminate Co2... we can't survive without it, the goal always has been to curb our metric tons of added Co2 per year to something closer to natural.
do you realize what those natural CO2 levels were? No, I'm NOT going to tell you. You wouldn't believe me anyway.
Indeed. Oddly enough, none of those previous catalysts involved cigar chompin' humans driving gas guzzling SUV's and emitting those pesky emissions.
How then can that comparison be drawn at all between what was and what is?
The addition of humans into the mythology has changed the equations, and requires some serious fudge factoring to make AGW work
They try to calculate how humans are warming the planet by comparing warming and cooling episodes when there were no... humans to warm the planet!
What would you define as a "natural" level of CO2?
The hubris of certain "progressive" segments of society to claim that they have the power to wreck an entire planet astounds me.
Earth will STILL be!
Originally posted by Kali74
Respect, yes... idolize no. It's simply an ability to recognize legitimacy, I wouldn't expect you to understand.
What good would it do to post any facts to you?edit on 22-7-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)
over-representation of factual presentations
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming.
Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
and there are very Rich folks that believe they can fleece even more money through "Taxes" playing this game of "Global Warming".
Yeah they're known as the fossil fuel cartels and they fleece plenty of tax dollars, don't they? Except the game they play is maintain the status quo even if you have to spend tens and tens of millions of dollars to lie about it.