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.
Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by SaturnFX
The human world doesn't affect the natural world. Yes we should always be a bit more green. But not for earth . For our health. We don't owe earth or the universe a dam thing nor does earth or the universe owe us anything.
You all extreme greenies need to accept that we humans are not special. We're not important. As if we have some duty to the green god. Our only duty is to make the best of what we have. Worrying about our planet will take us nowhere. Unless that's where you want to go.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
The guy who wrote the article is an editor for the Heartland Institute. Which advocates the Freemarket. There is also no link to any NASA study. he must of used the favorite word of ats, alarmist, about 30 times.
C'mon people, use your brain.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nathan-D
That calculation does not make sense. What has individual molecule residence time in common with atmospheric CO2 concentration, or limits to it? And why are you multiplying emission mass with average molecular residence time?
If you fill the pool with one hose, and empty it with another smaller hose, it is still possible to fill it without any limit, even when average individual molecule residence time is much smaller than the time it takes the pool to fill (and is certainly not infinite).
Originally posted by daggyz
They are hot air hypocrites every one of them. I will apologise if some one can prove to me greenies go out every week as part of their belief and actually 'look after' the planet where they live.
That calculation does not make sense. What has individual molecule residence time in common with atmospheric CO2 concentration, or limits to it?
And why are you multiplying emission mass with average molecular residence time?
If you fill the pool with one hose, and empty it with another smaller hose, it is still possible to fill it without any limit, even when average individual molecule residence time is much smaller than the time it takes the pool to fill (and is certainly not infinite).
Originally posted by poet1b
This study is nothing but junk science put out by a propagandist paid large amounts of money to discredit gloda. warming, and you people are all members of the choir.
Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer's research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.
...
Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by anon72
The best line the right can have on this is not to deny its even happening...it is, get over it, but to instead try to solve the issue verses just slow it down...the left is saying slowing it down will somehow solve it, and that is flawed also.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nenothtu
But those other 26 hoses are perfectly balanced by 26 equal drains (oceanic CO2 cycle), so the result is no increase over time. Your added hose, while a lot smaller, is not balanced by any equal drain (fossil CO2). Over time it will increase the water level. The net effect is important.
The ecosystem will handle recycling any amount of native material, and always has.
Those other 26 hoses are NOT perfectly balanced by drain sinks. The drains currently are a lot bigger than they have historically been, which is why free CO2 levels are very near an all-time low.
Originally posted by jdub297
When we get over our own assumed "greatness." we can address the more realistic goal of adaptation.