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: SonOfTheLawOfOne
So, I guess you are the pot meeting the kettle then? If I'm profoundly ignorant, you are exceptionally arrogant, and it shows.
Aside from your obnoxious rant on the difference of weather versus climate, the rest of your post is idiotic. Being able to predict that it will be warm in summer and cold in winter based on recent history has nothing to do with climate over hundreds or thousands of years.
You know nothing about computer models, but I will tell you FIRST HAND, they are used for predicting both weather locally, hurricanes and global climate. They are ALL consistently wrong. Why do models "have to agree" with hurricane tracks? Because they have different variables and algorithms written into each model, and NONE of them are "truly" right unless all of the variables are the same and they "agree". Models are based on math. All a climate model is, is a long range weather forecast.
The same math is used, and models are combined to create larger models for global climate. If you'd like to get into specifics of how the models work, I'm happy to enlighten you, as I wrote the code for a few of them.
Oh, and just to punctuate your ignorance....
The primary reason it is warmer in Miami than in North Dakota in January is from it being winter, which is due to the tilt of the planet. That has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases. That is a fact as opposed to your ridiculous theory, and we don't need computer models to predict it because we know the earth tilts, as opposed to knowing how the climate works.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the scientist at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row - has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons.
The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne
It's an approximation Phage, not an exact number. Some plants give more, some take more. It' not a zero-sum gain.
Approximation or not, you said more plants means more CO2.
That is nonsense.
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Pistoche
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Isn't it better to have less evidence than outright scientific fraud?
Cheers - Dave
Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it fraud. You were probably the type to argue the earth was still flat or that the earth was the center of the solar system when it was proved otherwise. May I know how exactly you've come to the conclusion that it is fraud?
Looks like fraud to me all things considered.....
True, the Sun does change slowly over time and there are also orbital/axial cycles that seem to affect climate. The thing is the current situation says things should be cooling, not warming. The output of the Sun is not increasing fast enough to account for the warming and we are in a downturn in the Milankovich cycle, which in any case, involves changes over thousands of years, not 100.
The sun goes through larger seasonal cycles like earth that's the reason for different climates on earth not c02.
That's completely false since there was three fold co2 during the ice age.
For more than a century scientists have known that Earth’s ice ages are caused by the wobbling of the planet’s orbit, which changes its orientation to the Sun and affects the amount of sunlight reaching higher latitudes, particularly the polar regions.
A summary of the sequence of events for the last 130,000 years ('real' years);
Phases about as warm or warmer than the present are marked in bold.
150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world
around 130,000 y.a. - rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e)
130,000-110,000 y.a. - global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present.
(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)
?110,000 y.a. - a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e).
105,000-95,000 y.a. - climate warms slightly but still cooler and drier than present; strong fluctuations.
95,000 - 93,000 y.a. - another cooler phase similar to that at 110,000 y.a.
93,000 - 75,000 y.a. - a milder phase, resembling that at 105,000-95,000 y.a.
75,000 - 60,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry (the 'Lower Pleniglacial' or Stage 4)
60,000 - 25,000 y.a. - 'middling phase' of highly unstable but generally cooler and drier-than-present conditions (Stage 3)
25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')
(This period includes two 'coldest phases' - Heinrich Events - at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid deglaciation begins.
13,500 y.a. - nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today's
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid onset of cool, dry Younger Dryas in many areas
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's
about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool and dry phase in many areas
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's
Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present
(except; about 2600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas)
originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: Pistoche
The Pro Climate change "Scientists" and I use the term "scientists" very loosely, have been caught LYING and presenting FRAUDULENT evidence a few times.
originally posted by: Fylgje
Other than nuclear testing(and other big bomb tests), I don't think that anything us humans do can harm the earth. The earths natural filtration process will work it out. This is just my uneducated opinion and it means nothing so don't get your panties in a bunch. Again, like OP stated correctly, this is about a TAX. A world tax that will generate trillions on fear and BS.
originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
If CO2 increases foliage growth (which it does), and more plants end up growing and consuming more carbon and therefore, also dying, over time, the CO2 will start to increase at a faster rate. It's one of many feedback loops in climate, but you already knew that. As temperature increases, so will the rate of decomposition as it is temperature that fosters the growth of the bacteria that break down the sugars from the plants and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Higher temps = more plants = more plant perspiration = more plant death = faster decomposition = increased CO2.