It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Global Warming... Is carbon the real reason??

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 02:57 PM
I am new to this site. I am in my last semester of electrical engineering, and have minors in physics and computer science. I have a class about the impact of technology, and in the last month we have been talking about carbon.
We saw Al Gore's film on Global warming and we have been given a research project on it.
I started reading and this is what I have found out.
1. Its seems that the earth is warming up. We have had record temperatures in the last few decades.
2. The carbon in the atmosphere has gone up substantially.
3. There seems to be a whole industry build on global warming.( scientists getting grants, governments around the world putting in huge amounts ).

I am not however sure of how much of the warming is green house gases.
It seems that we might not be accounting for everything though.

With all the reading I have done it seems that there might be a chance that we can't control what is happening to the weather but it seems that people shun anyone who questions all of this. Does anyone see any conspiricy behind this?

PS: I would like to see pollution go down to as low as possible, neither do I work for some big energy company. I will post what conclusions I reach in my research project.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by rul987

i don't there is a global warming per se. i see it as climate change. earth goes through cycles this is no different. dont let al gore tell you otherwise hes just prissy because he lost.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 05:34 PM
I agree with N. Tesla. We go through cycles. Back in the 70's, everyone was talking about global cooling and a new ice age. I don't know who is right. All I know is this; it is colder in Arkansas right now than is normal for this time of year. Somebody out there that understands climatology tell me what the hell is going on.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 05:53 PM

Global Warming... Is carbon the real reason??

Think about this question very carefully.


Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is present in all known lifeforms, and in the human body, carbon is the second most abundant element by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.[12] This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life.

Is carbon a problem?? NO!

Carbon dioxide? Hmm... No to that, too.

I'm guessing the fact you're posting to this site means you have an open mind, and realize things are not as they first appear. Congrats!

Let me say this about Al Gore. Smart.

Before you get the wrong impression, I'm not defending him, but actually acknowledging the fact that he has this gift of being able to mislead, get away with it, and not only that, get his movie (that he makes money from) shown in every educational establishment across the Western world, in order to brain-wash.

In the UK, they took the film to court and he lost on 7 points. At the time, they didn't make much of a deal of it and just said "the court even ackowledges that global warming is real". That may be so, but the small parts they threw out and said couldn't be taught were things like man being the cause, and the mechanisms behind it.

It's obvious the Earth goes through these cycles, but the reason being pushed by Government, IPCC and Al Gore are bogus. We're due another Ice Age about now (and in some places I read that we're overdue one), but the IPCC keep talking about the Earth warming up significantly since the 60s.

Keep your head on your shoulders - that's only 40 YEARS.

The last Ice Age occurred a little over 100,000 years ago, and has been warming up since. The Industrial Revolution is acknowledge to have started around 1850.

All the GW scaremongers hang off this point, and say "since blah blah blah" the Earth has been warming up at a dangerous rate. We're doomed if we don't act now to curb CO2 emissions. The poor will die. Think of the Polar Bears.

Do you notice anything about the language used?

What does CO2, transport, flying, burning stuff like fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) all have in common? CRUDE OIL and NATURAL GAS reserves!


The Governments don't have the b***s to say it, and the people couldn't cope with it.

If there is no electricity, what do you think would happen to society? If there is no fuel to run cars, what do you think would happen? Mass panic, that's what. Probably a lot of deaths, too.

We'd have to live like we did back in the 1700s. No internet, no TV, no cars, no industry (for a while). We'd be back to logging pretty quick to make things like horse drawn carts etc..

This is the reality. GW is scaremongering in order to get people to act. Unfortunately reasonable debate on the issue of oil can't be had as most people couldn't handle the idea. The talks on solutions to the oil problem are drowned out by the Environmentalists with their own agendas.

When ever you hear of global warming, you also hear of energy security (and it is no co-incidence that this is the case). They say we must save energy, use less electricity, save the planet, but what they really mean is, use less electricity = save energy = save gas/oil/coal.

They want us to get more fuel efficient cars. Not because it produces less CO2 (although CO2 output is directly proprtional to the amount of fuel burnt), but because it means we generally use LESS OIL.

Can you see the pattern here yet? It has nothing to do with the planet, and everything to do with oil reserves.

Here is another much overlooked point: the seasons! What causes this? The tilt of the earth, and the orbit around the Sun. If this tiny little detail makes the difference between +35°C in Summer, and -4°C in Winter, it makes a 2°C average rise over 50 years look pretty rediculous, doesn't it?

Furthermore, we don't see the last Ice Age as anything strange, yet the fact we're approaching the point on the other end of this cycle has everyone running around screaming "DOOM!"?! No - it's natural.

At Earths creation (not in the Biblical sense), it was nothing but a massive ball of molten rock. Life was dream back in those days, over 4.6 Billion years ago. Now look at us. Teeming with life. Yes, man has done its bit to kill off species over the decades, but global warming had nothing to do with that. During the depths of the last Ice Age there was little life, but it came back into abundance when the planet started thawing out. These are details that are constantly overlooked.

A question often dodged by the GW camp is this: why the sudden rise since the 60s, if the industrial revolution started in the 1800s, and we're cleaner with industry now than ever (in terms of the ever precious CO2)?

Hopefully you are more enlightened now. Good luck with your studies!

[edit on 6-12-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by rul987

NO. Darn that is less than a one liner even, but it surely is the truth and surely is the easiest way to say it,

Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is less than .038% of our atmosphere, the Earth is warming as all the planets are, because of the SUN, EXCEPT this year...

Meteorologists announced yesterday or Thursday that 2008 was the coldest year across the globe in the last decade...

Edited cause I can't type right the first time...

[edit on 12/6/2008 by theindependentjournal]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 06:27 PM
The temp hasnt changed in 10 years...yet everything is supposedly just starting to melt...yah...right

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by rul987

Please do not take offense, but your first mistake was to watch Al Gore's movie. Your second is to believe anything that comes out of his hypocritical mouth. Just do a google on "Al Gore's hypocrisy" and you'll see what I mean. The man is a waste of humanity.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by rul987

Welcome to ATS. You've just stumbled into one of the most discussed issue on ATS. Just to give you an idea, here is one from last year:

titled "New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story"

If you want to see some of the threads, just key in "Global Warming" in the search box. You'll see many of the same members on quite a few of the threads. I've been on them since March. You'll find TheRedneck on quite a few of them, and he also has a great level of knowledge on the subject. Don't let his avatar fool you, he's quite knowledgeable on the subject.
Don't be afraid to state your opinion. There are a few flamers on the forum, but just ignore them, if they give you grief.
We welcome you to the subject. You might want to peruse some of the recent threads on GW to get a feel for what has already been posted, and where people stand on the issue. Unfortunately, it seems to be quite politicized, although it shouldn't be, IMHO.

Nice meeting you.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by rul987

Just to get you started, here is a great link that takes on the GW activitists:

By the way, water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas while CO2 makes up only .038% (concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is presently at around 380 ppmv, or 0.038%.)

What are the take-home messages:

* The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
* The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
* The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
* The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
* There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
* The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
* Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
* Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
* Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
* There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
* Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
* Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by rul987

By the way, don't use Wikipedia as a reference. Most profs, including myself, would not allow it as a source.
Has your professor given any hint as to his/her stance on GW? I hope the prof isn't one of those who take it out on the students if you don't agree with his/her hypothesis! They shouldn't but I had colleagues that took it as a personal affront if you opposed their position. Whatever you publish, make sure your sources are reputable, avoid any blogs as references, and try to stick to scientific papers and studies by reputable organizations. Be aware that peer-reviewed papers on GW tend to favor the "Al Gore" position, because grants are quite political, and no one wants to challenge the people that control the purse strings.
Personally, I believe that the entire man-made GW is hogwash. That is my belief from abundant long-term studies (eons, not decades) which show predictable cycles very similar to what we are going through, long before man had any "carbon footprint". I remember the 1970's , when the big thing was "We're about to enter a new Ice Age", which by the way, seems to be making a comeback with some recent papers, with that hypothesis again.

Have fun. It's a great topic. Just avoid being swayed by people like Al Gore, who have no clue as to the scientific factors involved with global change.

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:37 PM
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
In my search for the truth, I came across a movie " The Great Global Warming Swindle".(The movie has been criticized widely). The movie seems to be colored to say the least but it does provide some interesting hypothesis.
What I found interesting was that it talked about when the sun's radiation goes up oceans take some centuries to heat up. The increase in the temperature causes the carbon dioxide to go up which is responsible for heating the earth.
I am still not convinced how much we can blame carbon dioxide but interesting none the less.
Also my professor it seems supports global warming so I am not going to oppose him directly. I am going to argue that when Al Gore makes his statements he does not take all the facts into account.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by rul987]

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:57 PM
sorry - I havent read most of the posts... however, to answer your question.... No it is not the real reason.
humans produce enough CO2 to equal a lug nut on a car that represents the natural sources of CO2. so human activities are not the reason, now that being said the real reason we are expeenceing Global Warming is the SUN, we are in a 25,600 year cycle at which should peak in 2013 early. will be be hottest point and then the earth will go into a 25.600 year cooling ICE AGE at its peak.. I notice these two cycles crossed in my 2012 reasearch. also, it was understood that the earths food production would not be sustainible roughly 500 million, which Georgia Guide Stones sited..
a piece here a piece there. I think the global power to governments under the NWO is the ability to cull the flock since wars dont seem to be effective. yea, the stuff nightmares are made of.

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:32 PM
THIS is the cause of the Global Warming Hoax - Read up on the carbon credit scam & so called "cap and trade". This "creates" a whole new paper trading / subsides industry. If this is allowed to happen there will be to much money in it for it to ever go away.

What Governments and Special Interest groups believe in is all the money that will come with the "carbon credit" scam and all the power it gives a government to do as it wishes against the will of the people in the "interest" of mankind

Companies are figuring out how to work the ridiculous "Carbon Credits" debacle to make big bucks. (and as they get paid, traders trade paper and real industries have to buy the paper and pass on the cost to .... wait for it... US!)

Rhodia, is a French Company, makes adipic acid which is a chemical used in the production of nylon. They have moved their operation to South Korea and Brazil. Why?

A by-product of their manufacturing process is the creation of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is over 300 times more potent as an atmospheric warming agent than carbon dioxide. Rhodia destroys the nitrous oxide after it has been created and then claims carbon credit reimbursement for the green house gasses it has eradicated.

Rhodia, makes more money from this scam than they do from their primary business, They are raking in around a three hundred million dollars a year - more money than the whole of Africa is from Carbon credit reimbursements!

Also, Al Gore has a very big personal investment into bringing this carbon credit (cap & trade) to America.

Here is the deal, this whole Kyoto protocol is nothing but a money grab. Even many die hard global warming groups are starting to see that this scheme will do little to nothing in reducing carbon emissions.

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:48 PM
Global warming by man is a scam.

The global warming scam is a front for a group of Neo-Luddites to deindustrialize the world. Luddites had, in this view, come to be imagined as the counter-revolutionaries of that "Industrial Revolution"

Neo-Luddism is a modern movement of opposition to specific or general technological development.

Global warming will allow the neo-luddites to control exactly what industry can do and who does it.

Just watch the auto companies bailout.
The neo-luddites have already planned how they will control exactly what cars they will let the auto makers build and also control how much money the neo-luddites will make off of the deal.

They will once they get there hooks into the auto industry never let go.

They will let the auto industery only build just the cars that will keep the companies running but not enough to ever payoff the bailout.

This way they will turn the auto industry into a government run company forever.

I also believe that the government caused the economy to collapse just so they can generate greater control of industry in the US.

In the long run the government will control everything just by bankrupting any companies they don't want doing business.

I also believe the neo-luddites have a long term plan to bankrupt china and india once they have full control in the US by using global warming to control all products that china and india can export to the world until they clean up. then it will be a country by country takeover by the neo-luddites/treehuggers.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by ANNED]

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
I agree with N. Tesla. We go through cycles. Back in the 70's, everyone was talking about global cooling and a new ice age. I don't know who is right. All I know is this; it is colder in Arkansas right now than is normal for this time of year. Somebody out there that understands climatology tell me what the hell is going on.

I've read about this too, and many are saying, thanks to global warming, the ice age is avoided.

But something is crazy going on in USA. I was there a couple months ago and having an abnormally cold spell. When I came back to Philippines, it's global warming as usual. ONe of the hottest novembers we had.

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:42 PM
I have to agree with most of the posters. The Global Warming/Carbon Tax is a scam. As I've posted earlier, scientists state that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, by a huge margin, NOT CO2.
Of course, Al Gore's hot air may contribute as much as all of the CO2 in the atmosphere anyway.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:05 AM
Yes, but if you have a Carbon Tax you can charge people for breathing tax. and if you can not pay the tax - you have no right to air. interesting outcome and it is something so sadistic even Burns on the Simpsons would have to say E-X-C-E-L-L-E-N-T ...

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:14 AM
reply to post by BornPatriot

Yes, but if you have a Carbon Tax you can charge people for breathing tax.

Why not? They are proposing taxing farmers for smelly cows and hogs:

Proposed fee on smelly cows, hogs angers farmers
By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Bob Johnson, Associated Press Writer – Fri Dec 5, 4:43 am E
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law.

Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which is one of several put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases emitted by belching and flatulence amounts to air pollution.

"This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the proposal.

It would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.

The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."

Sparks said Wednesday he's worried the fee could be extended to chickens and other farm animals and cause more meat to be imported.

"We'll let other countries put food on our tables like they are putting gas in our cars. Other countries don't have the health standards we have," Sparks said.

EPA spokesman Nick Butterfield said the fee was proposed for farms with livestock operations that emit more than 100 tons of carbon emissions in a year and fall under federal Clean Air Act provisions.

Butterfield said the EPA has not taken a position on any of the proposals. But farmers from across the country have expressed outrage over the idea, both on Internet sites and in opinions sent to EPA during a public comment period that ended last week.

"It's something that really has a very big potential adverse impact for the livestock industry," said Rick Krause, the senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The fee would cover the cost of a permit for the livestock operations. While farmers say it would drive them out of business, an organization supporting the proposal hopes it forces the farms and ranches to switch to healthier crops.

"It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

"We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share," he said.

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Haleyville in northwest Alabama, said he has spoken with EPA officials and doesn't believe the cow tax is a serious proposal that will ever be adopted by the agency.

"Who comes up with this kind of stuff?" said Perry Mobley, director of the Alabama Farmers Federation's beef division. "It seems there is an ulterior motive, to destroy livestock farms. This would certainly put them out of business."

Butterfield said the EPA is reviewing the public comments and didn't have a timetable for the next steps.

Nothing like another dumb tax to drive our farmers out of business. That a way to go, government, keep it up, and there will be no one left to tax in this country.
This tax gets my dumb dumb award of the year.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:12 AM
Every year since 1999 the global carbon dioxide output has increased.

Every year since 1999 the global mean temperature has decreased.

We are insignificant.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by bronco73]

[edit on 9-12-2008 by bronco73]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:15 AM

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I have to agree with most of the posters. The Global Warming/Carbon Tax is a scam. As I've posted earlier, scientists state that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, by a huge margin, NOT CO2.
Of course, Al Gore's hot air may contribute as much as all of the CO2 in the atmosphere anyway.

Well said. Well over 90 percent of the GHG's are water vapor, and less than 4% are CO2.

Termites emit more GHG's than all of humanity combined.

We are insignificant.

EDITED: I must apologize. I had read some time ago that water vapor comprises 90 percent of the GHG's, but according to wikipedia it is 70%. I thought I better post this just in case somebody decides to check my numbers.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by bronco73]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in