Global warming proved to be fake

Originally posted by sarahlm
Global warming or climate change doesn't exist. It's the Earth's natural cycle, carbon increases and decreases naturally the Earth warms up and then cools down naturally and the government are using to scare people and cash in off the back of it. The extreme weather around the world that's happening is probably more man made with Geo-engineering and things like that. They can blame it on our 'carbon footprint' as much as they like, but I don't buy it.

So what do you propose we do when oil and coal run out? No matter what you believe about global warming we have to start shifting over to solar. Do you really think advanced civilizations power themselves by burning things?

What is not fake is the alarming rate at which the North and South poles are melting and giving us this crazy weather due to increased moisture and other factors.

I agree there exist natural cycles, however without question - increased emissions and green house gases through the use of Fossil fuels retains more heat on our planet. This is quantifiable. It is not some obscure fact. We know that fossil fuel emissions, which include all the cars and electric plants on our planet which run 24/7 emit 'X' amount of emissions, and we know exactly how much energy this emission absorbs/retains, and it is not insignificant.

I think it is really retarded that even knowing this, we still continue to drive gas powered cars. We should have been converted to full electric cars a long time ago, using something like Thorium electric plants for energy

And Santa Claus is real.

OMG some of you nitwits take the cake.

That's OK. The world is beginning to ignore stupid.

reply to post by Rezlooper

The biggest mysteries of this is why did the methane release level off for nearly a decade from the late 1990's until 2007, and then why did it suddenly begin rapidly increasing again and it did worldwide, as shown in the graph below.

That is a mystery and an interesting one. That would put a period of stable numbers at a very hard and fast growing period for pollution. After all, China is moving in just a couple decades, what it took the other world powers a century or more to accomplish. China has manpower and does NOT need the time or effort to invent or problem solve anything ...but they have been opening power plants with horrible tech for pollution controls as we've been pollution controlling our coal plants and other sources half to death. You would think the two would balance for a neutral outcome to whatever numbers had been. (rising) Odd...that it didn't go that way? I think it suggests a natural direction to start looking...and sooner than later by the sound of it.

One surprising feature of this recent growth is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the globe. However, the majority of methane emissions are in the Northern Hemisphere, and it takes more than one year for gases to be mixed from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere.

(Your link)

Those are the kinds of statements I worry about and makes me question the overall professional ability (if not outright motives) of those charged with collection and processing of the data. Most emissions originate in the Northern Hemisphere...take a year to get to the Southern...yet all levels rose world-wide at or about the same time. Well.... That is what I call a brick wall of logic...and they skate around it like it wasn't there.

You suggest in some of your research that we may be looking at what I've heard referred to as 'Fire Ice' (methane in very extensive ocean floor deposits) releasing into the water and up into the atmosphere. That would explain planetary elevations in readings when 'accepted' sources make it unlikely if not impossible. Hmm...

Thanks again for staying on top of this as you have been... Everyone may not 100% agree with every aspect of what your into here..but I think it's safe to say a great many are watching to see what comes up next.

Originally posted by evictiongnostic

Originally posted by sarahlm
Global warming or climate change doesn't exist. It's the Earth's natural cycle, carbon increases and decreases naturally the Earth warms up and then cools down naturally and the government are using to scare people and cash in off the back of it. The extreme weather around the world that's happening is probably more man made with Geo-engineering and things like that. They can blame it on our 'carbon footprint' as much as they like, but I don't buy it.

So what do you propose we do when oil and coal run out? No matter what you believe about global warming we have to start shifting over to solar. Do you really think advanced civilizations power themselves by burning things?

Switch to solar? Umm.. The last few big companies to try large scale solar production for consumer level power supply went bankrupt after robbing the American People of several hundred million dollars each. I'm not a real fan of solar right now. Not for the technology. I DO support the potential. However, potential and reality are about night and day here, quite literally. When they have a GOOD % of power production coming out of Solar...I'll call it a viable alternative. Right now? Switching over means we better all buy a lot of candles and relearn board or card games.



(Source: US Energy Information Administration )

I'm all for the development of alternative technologies. Global Warning or not...Pollution doesn't need climate change to be a priority we need to care about and do something about. Dying without global warming but from gross spoiling of the rest of the environment won't be much of a consolation prize for those who spent all the time and resources on "climate change" ....while oceans, lakes, rivers and the very air we breath is growing more toxic.

At the same time....as the above shows...Solar isn't even remotely CLOSE to mainstream for production/deployment. While new plants are being sued by environmentalists like the Sierra Club, who insist the Desert is unfit for solar panels I wouldn't expect that to change soon, either.

Originally posted by nOraKat
What is not fake is the alarming rate at which the North and South poles are melting and giving us this crazy weather due to increased moisture and other factors.

The Antarctic Ice mass is growing, not shrinking...despite the calving of ice on occasion. It's growing thicker, not thinner. The North is a different matter but it's fair to ask...as the float ice of the north seems to get smaller with each season's refreeze ....and the Antarctic is growing ...is the ice simply shifting?

I think it is really retarded that even knowing this, we still continue to drive gas powered cars. We should have been converted to full electric cars a long time ago, using something like Thorium electric plants for energy

Retarded? Ouch... Not the best choice of words..but so be it. You might glance above at how electricity is produced in the vast majority...before figuring a switch from gas cars to electric cars will be some magic whammy for the environment. The VAST majority of our power .....and what would be charging and running those cars ...comes from Coal, Petroleum and Nuclear.

It makes for a bit of a tough spot ..but it is what it is.

Originally posted by catswithbigpaws
I don't even care about global warming, yet our abundant use of unclean and unsustainable energy sources is disgusting to me. It's inevitable they're harmful to the environment, such as oil spills and habitat fragmentation due to mining. This is what we should be focusing on. The slight heating the planet honestly looks pretty trivial.
Also, the rise in CO2 DOES have anthropogenic causes. The planet does not easily release tons of CO2 by itself. In order to release a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, sources containing it must be altered/destroyed to where they do not contain CO2 anymore. For example, deforestation leads to an increase of CO2. The depleted biosphere then causes an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels, which are most often deemed to be the culprit of CO2 inputs into the atmosphere, when combusted, obviously increase CO2. The major natural process of Earth that increases CO2 is volcano eruptions, and those do not happen very much.
I recommend all of you research this stuff or take an environmental/earth science class before you speak.

edit on 18-3-2013 by catswithbigpaws because: (no reason given)

The planet does in fact release large amounts of CO2 by itself in the form of volcanic eruptions.
Mt st. helens itself released 650 tons of CO2 a day during it's eruption.
answers.yahoo.com...

This link has volcanoes across the globe erupting 50-60 times per month.
www.scholastic.com...
Who needs to take that earth science class again?

Originally posted by evictiongnostic

Originally posted by sarahlm
Global warming or climate change doesn't exist. It's the Earth's natural cycle, carbon increases and decreases naturally the Earth warms up and then cools down naturally and the government are using to scare people and cash in off the back of it. The extreme weather around the world that's happening is probably more man made with Geo-engineering and things like that. They can blame it on our 'carbon footprint' as much as they like, but I don't buy it.

So what do you propose we do when oil and coal run out? No matter what you believe about global warming we have to start shifting over to solar. Do you really think advanced civilizations power themselves by burning things?

So are we going to make products out of solar energy?? Petrol products go beyond just fuel sparky.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Antarctic sea ice is growing, land ice is shrinking and breaking off this is a bad sign.

reply to post by votan


Everything we use petroleum for as far plastics etc, we can make with other resources, mainly one that I can't mention.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by votan

 

Everything we use petroleum for as far plastics etc, we can use other things for.

What other products can be used to create plastics? Please give sources, as well as a cost of said "other thing" vs. petroleum source comparison.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Antarctic sea ice is growing, land ice is shrinking and breaking off this is a bad sign.

edit on 18-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

You're right and that's the whole ball of wax and problem. Right there.... You hit it dead on. The ice exposed to air and very cold/freezing threshold water? Is growing. The ice exposed to air and LAND...is having some issues with changes in places here recently. I'm certainly aware of the atmospheric hole of sorts that ebbs and flows over Antarctica, however....The air temperature (I.E. Environment) isn't the problem. Even if someone wanted to make the argument that Antarctica was getting warmer? Warmer is a VERY relative thing on the Ice.

Fourth Quarter

While the weather in North America tends to get colder during the fourth quarter of the year, the temperature increases in Antarctica during this part of the year. The average high temperature in October is about -60 degrees and the average low for the month is about -65 degrees. The average high temperature in November increases to -36 and then -16 in December. The average low for November is -40 degrees F and -20 degrees F for December.

Yearly Averages

The average high temperature for the year in Antarctica is about -49 degrees F, while the average low temperature for the continent is about -56 degrees F.

Source

So, if Ice is moving and changing over land and air temp is still, well, lethally cold? I'd start wondering if the land under that Continent wasn't starting to get active in some ways too. After all, it's surprising how many people don't realize the sheer size of the land mass that was once a lush, living continent. There is another important thing to consider about that continent....and it's got a couple points to it.



It's sheer size makes it relevant to ask where we're talking about growing versus ice moving and calving. If Antarctica ever DOES start showing real significant signs of ice shrinkage, we need to say hell with the International treaties and go find out WHY it's happening ..if air temp is so far below freezing, it makes a commercial freezer look like Fiji on a sunny day? We have a big problem....because melting from changes beneath wouldn't be something we could mitigate, I'm thinking.

It is roughly the size of the United States and Mexico combined and is almost completely covered by a layer of ice that averages more than one mile in thickness, but is nearly three miles thick in places. This ice accumulated over millions of years through snowfall. Presently, the Antarctic ice sheet contains 90% of the ice on Earth and would raise sea levels worldwide by over 200 feet were it to melt.

Source

A fair % of the world's population by settlement patterns can learn to swim, or move far inland. 200 foot rise would.. well.. Let's not go there. That's the kind of thing they make moves about to scare the audience for 90 minutes and a ticket. (That's a continent I've come to keep up on any news about, almost like a hobby..for a number of reasons. Weather/climate is just one)

reply to post by Kali74


You are wrong in so many ways during this thread.

Firstly, "greenhouse gases" are nothing to do with greenhouses. Greenhouses get warm because solar radiation can pass through glass, but once it comes into contact with something - say the ground - its partially reflect, and partly convert into infra red radiation, or heat, which can't pass through glass. Nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse gasses, on the other hand increase the GMST gradually by allowing the atmosphere to absorb energy in the form of infra red radiation, which is then re-emitted rather than it being reflected back into space.The reason for this is to do with the bonds of the molecules. Probably no need to go too far into the details, but generally a greenhouse has has more than one element in its molecules. The most abundant greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide, it's water vapor.

What makes you think the amount if carbon dioxide increases in a green house? Photosynthesis produces carbon and oxygen. The carbon is used in the plants and the oxygen is released. Meaning that oxygen increases as carbon dioxide decreases. Respiration is the opposite is photosynthesis in plants, which does release carbon dioxide, however no to the same extent as oxygen is release (depending on conditions I suppose). What I'm getting at, in a greenhouse, a state if equilibrium would be maintained. There is no net increase in the yield of carbon dioxide.


With regard to the OP, I don't generally trust the daily mail as a sorce. Global warming is a fact, but in my opinion man made carbon dioxide emissions are unlikely to cause as drastic an effect as the media will have you believe. What is portrayed in the media exaggerates human impact on the carbon cycle. There are several factors involve which out weigh human carbon emissions, but any change can cause positive feedback, by which the increase from one source can result in further increases within the system. I feel though, that human carbon emissions are necessary. If humans had not had an impact on carbon emissions, we would still be living in the dark ages.

reply to post by mcsteve


Well, forgive me for not being up to date on the science of greenhouses, that's how it was taught to me in school 27ish years ago lol. I'm more focused on the science of the greenhouse gas effect. Thank-you for updating me so that I don't continue to look like a moron.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


As far as I can tell that is something that wouldn't happen for quite a long time, long after we're dead lol. That doesn't mean we should ignore it though, same as we shouldn't ignore global warming. I hope to be grandmother and great grandmother someday and though I will most likely not know my great great grandchildren I hope that their great grandchildren don't have to grow gills.

The retreat of West Antarctica's glaciers is being accelerated by ice shelf collapse. Ice shelves are the part of a glacier that extends past the grounding line towards the ocean they are the most vulnerable to warming seas. A longstanding theory in glaciology is that these ice shelves tend to buttress (support the end wall of) glaciers, with their mass slowing the ice movement towards the sea, and this was confirmed by the spectacular collapse of the Rhode Island-sized Larsen B shelf along the Eastern edge of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002. The disintegration, which was caught on camera by NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imaging instruments on board its Terra and Aqua satellites, was dramatic: it took just three weeks to crumble a 12,000-year old ice shelf. Over the next few years, satellite radar data showed that some of the ice streams flowing behind Larsen B had accelerated significantly, while others, still supported by smaller ice shelves, had not 9. This dynamic process of ice flowing downhill to the sea is what enables Antarctica to continue losing mass even as surface melting declines.

Source

“Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds. This study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The total Antarctic sea-ice cover is increasing slowly, but individual regions are actually experiencing much larger gains and losses that are almost offsetting each other overall. We now know that these regional changes are caused by changes in the winds, which in turn affect the ice cover through changes in both ice drift and air temperature. The changes in ice drift also suggest large changes in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, which is very sensitive to the cold and salty water produced by sea-ice growth.
“Sea ice is constantly on the move; around Antarctica the ice is blown away from the continent by strong northward winds. Since 1992 this ice drift has changed. In some areas the export of ice away from Antarctica has doubled, while in others it has decreased significantly.”

Source

reply to post by Kali74


You don't need to up-to-date on the science of greenhouses, just science in general. Do you understand why greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases? Its nothing to do with an actual greenhouse. I think you were the one who brought the irrelevant subject of greenhouses into the thread. What initially provoked me to reply to you was the fact that you think you know better than most about the subject, where its abundantly clear that you don't. I don't particularly care what you think of what I am saying, I would just rather see correct information than a half thought out guess presented as fact.

This very informative guys thanks for all you input

Can't wait to get home and read it all

Many thanks

Cody

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Antarctic sea ice is growing, land ice is shrinking and breaking off this is a bad sign.

edit on 18-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

It's a sign that the planet Earth is ALWAYS changing and evolving.

The Earth warmed and cooled in the past. It will also warm and cool in the future.

Get used to it.

reply to post by cody599



Yes but that does not prove global warning to be a fake merely over estimated in its effect to date. These figures are actually an extrapolation from the known (proven) to the unknown (unproven) .

No Big deal.

T

reply to post by mcsteve


I would rather see correct information as well which is why I thanked you. And yes I know greenhouse gasses have nothing to do with actual greenhouses. Also while I may have not looked at what happens in a greenhouse in 27 years, I have done a lot of research on global warming and climate change. That doesn't make me a scientist just informed.