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.

 

NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

page: 28
50
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Trying to break down my character is not science and is certainly not contributing to this thread.

The 40%+ and counting increase of CO2 is real. This species is causing harm to this planet.

I'm done here. Game Over!



NOTHING you have writtten has anything to do with science...

You keep trying to avoid the facts from day one... You lied claiming to have a PHD and then in the next page saying "I never said/wrote that"...

You have claimed to believe AGW is a hoax to then back the claims behind AGW that "We must cull CO2 from the atmosphere" and other idiotic claims not based at all in fact.

CO2 has increased... Really?... Is that all the proof you need to keep backing the religion you have obviously swallowed willingly?...

You haven't been able to prove that CO2 is to blame for "the massive warming" that you and the AGW scientists keep blaming on CO2. Yet you keep ignoring that WATER VAPOR is 10 times more powerful than CO2 molecule by molecule, and WATER VAPOR is more abundant than CO2 will ever be. That is unless some real catastrophe happens such as a large meteor hitting the Earth.

You keep posting just your uninformed opinion time and again that "CO2 is to blame for everything and we must stop it THATS ALL I WANT TO KNOW"...

But hey, it seems you have learned how to lie just like Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Hansen et el... Good job in learning from your loved masters.




posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

If you will recall, your post was in response to defcon5, whose post was a rebuttal of FarleyWayne's claim that other planets in the Solar System were warming along with the Earth.
...


Yet you are unable to show where I wrote that the TSI graph I gave was the most recent one. Who was talking about trying to get off the tangent?...



originally posted by: Greven

Which you followed with a bunch of graphs over a brief time period seemingly showing an increase in Total Solar Irradiance. What you were mostly writing was about the small trending increase in TSI during lower periods of solar activity.

That's misleading in a few ways:

...


The second graph I gave shows the increase in magnetic disturbance on the Sun from the year 1868-2007.

In fact, here you go.


Major Magentic Storms 1868-2007
According to the AA* criteria

...
Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.
...

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...


BTW, as I have stated many times on other threads it is not just one factor that is influencing changes on Earth. It isn't just the Sun. It is all together from the Sun's activity, the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field, the underwater volcanoes which are warming many parts of the oceans and are warming including the Antarctic, etc, etc.

Yet warming caused by CO2 is negligible. Want to know why?

Some years back ATS member Outland posted in graphics how tiny is the amount of CO2 that exists on Earth's atmosphere which amounts to 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere.


originally posted by: Outland
The image below illustrates to scale all of the GHGs in the atmosphere rounded up to 400PPM (0.04%) -not including water vapor- as indicated by the red area.


Compare that with atmospheric oxygen for perspective...


Compare that to nitrogen for perspective...


Of that 0.04% of GHGs, the gray part of the magnified red area is human based...


I hope you're all feeling really guilty now.



edit on 13-7-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add info



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
I did read your reply and noticed that you corrected the data in your graph, so while I appreciate that, I didn't see anything else acknowledging that temperature rises before CO2, which nullifies most of the discussion. It is irrelevant to argue over something as a cause when evidence supports it being an effect.

The discussion should shift to the cause.

If CO2 rising is an effect of temperature increasing, there is nothing we can do to change the temperature since that would infer that we can control the sun. Trying to say that it's because of CO2 would also infer that CO2 has an impact on the sun, and there is no disputing the fact that the sun is the single largest contributor to temperature on the planet.

AGW is on its death bed as a valid theory. There is WAY too much evidence in contradiction. There isn't a dispute over how CO2 acts as a warming mechanism, but there is vehement disagreement and evidence against it being a cause of climate change. Even the models are diverging and disagreeing because of the latest evidence being added to the data set.

David Evans has released a new model which agrees with Leif Svalgaard's (keep in mind, this man has a solar theory named after him) TSI data and predictions, as well as is aligned with several other cycles such as the Bond Cycle and the barycentric cycle of the sun.
...
Common sense would tell us that we should fear a global cool-down more than warming, so maybe the discussion should stop around who is right or wrong and face the fact that either way, regardless of hotter or colder, we all would need to prepare to adapt to those changes, which we are not doing.

I didn't "correct" data in the graph. I told you before, the previous graph was based on annual temperature anomalies, rather than monthly temperature index. Different data sets, and different time frames. I used your own source to construct a new graph, yet your own source contradicts the graph that you posted supposedly based on that source. The temperature trends are reversed. Even the temperature Y-axis seems much different. I questioned who actually made the graph, and you would rather shift the discussion to some other tangent instead of respond to that. Will you answer this now?

Regarding CO2 lagging behind temperature, I'm pretty sure I mentioned something along those lines before. SkS discusses it in detail: changes in the Earth's orbit/tilt/wobble caused - and begin the end of - glaciation. In periods of warming, oceans gave up CO2, which accelerated warming more than the forcing from the changing relation of the Earth and Sun can account for.

We are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is beyond question. If CO2 did account for the accelerated warming in the past, it should hold true now. To dismiss CO2 outright is preposterous, since it can be observed to heat an atmosphere. Do you observe clouds and determine that they are not formed by water because rain comes from them?

Furthermore, there is also research that suggests CO2 has both led and lagged temperature change - depending on what hemisphere you're talking about. See, CO2 appears to spread warming from the Southern Hemisphere into the Northern Hemisphere. Again, this stuff is complicated.

Leif Svalgaard doesn't agree with David Evans, though:

As far as I am concerned, the model is already falsified. Not by the observations but by the [almost fraudulent - as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input to begin with. This concludes my comments as the prediction is worthless on its face.

Or, you can just wait a few years to see for yourself that it's wrong. Your choice.

Most of the people who agree with you that AGW is wrong would disagree with doing anything at all - and probably disagree, as you suggest. In this, you are more in line with the people who think AGW is right.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No. Do not make such accusations. They are consistent of a disinfo agenda. Personal attacks to destroy a poster or 'activists' credibility. Straight from the book.....consider you have tried to associate me with the AGW nut-case crowd, I do believe you have an agenda to discredit everything I have posted on this thread.

I cited several reputable PHDs that you and your friends instantly wrote off without even checking into.You cited www links, made excessively long posts and quotes from those links that contribute nothing scientific to the CO2 problem. The rapid rise of CO2 is a problem, there is no debate about it.

You call me an alarmist, then post some chicken little BS in this very thread about an incoming space anomaly.......

So I am done replying to your bait and trap replies, you do not bring science to this thread all you bring are personal attacks and credibility attacks.

I am a believer of science, facts, and reason.

For the record CO2 is increasingly rapidly in our atmosphere, and my conscious will not allow me to sit back and pretend all is well.

40% and rising
edit on 14-7-2014 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven
Yet you are unable to show where I wrote that the TSI graph I gave was the most recent one. Who was talking about trying to get off the tangent?...

Recall again the sequence of events - perhaps you've forgotten them, as the post you are replying to was a week ago:
1) FarleyWayne posted a claim that other planets were warming, not just Earth
2) defcon5 posted a counterclaim, with a chart (1978-2009) showing the claim to be false.
3) You posted a counter-counterclaim, with older charts (1979-2002) to backup the previous claim.
4) I asked why you are using such old data to claim things, and posted a more recent TSI chart.
5) You asked where you said you claimed to be using a new chart then went off on a tangent.
6) I called you out on this in detail.
7) You again want me to show where you claimed to be using a more recent chart - a strawman that you have constructed.
8) Here we are. Is this sufficient, or will you instead provoke more people to laugh at you?
edit on 14Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:28:46 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: wayward quote tages



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Some years back ATS member Outland posted in graphics how tiny is the amount of CO2 that exists on Earth's atmosphere which amounts to 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere.


And so what? 400 parts per million, no disagreement.

The question is what the consequences on the radiative transfer and climate are by changing that. There's plenty of harmful pollution and toxins at lower levels than that.

Making pictures of 400 parts per million and saying "SEE!!!" is idiot pseudoscience, when actual science has worked on the problem for many decades quantitatively using real laws of physics & chemistry and observations.

Would anybody argue in some chemical engineering problem that 400 ppm can't possibly do anything because, uh, because, uh, it's only 0.04%? Completely contrary to decades of work on that very problem? Obviously not, this is intended as self-satifactory truthiness for people to be comfortable with their prejudices motivated by a distaste for the economic & political consequences of the actual science and moral responsibility.

What's the change in astronomical insolation due to the precession which is believed to be an instigator of the ice age glaciation cycle? It's pretty damn small. Very very small on an absolute term and yet that has a significant effect on the global climate. And yes, the change in radiative forcing from global warming (change in greenhouse effect) is a few watts (not sure about the number) per square meter out of a incoming solar insolation of 1366 w/m^2. (Total greenhouse effect is ~150 w/m^2). Seemingly small and yet from a human point of view can have a big effect on climate. Remember that from a quantitative physics view, the range of climates include Mercury, Venus, Moon, Mars, Io, Titan, Saturn, etc etc etc which are preposterously different from Earth's. Climate is very sensitive to small changes on an absolute physical scale.

What's the concentration of CFC's in atmosphere which contributed greatly to polar ozone holes? Parts per BILLION. And that has a major universally acknowledged effect, and significant international regulatory effort is helping.





originally posted by: Outland
The image below illustrates to scale all of the GHGs in the atmosphere rounded up to 400PPM (0.04%) -not including water vapor- as indicated by the red area.


Compare that with atmospheric oxygen for perspective...


Compare that to nitrogen for perspective...


Of that 0.04% of GHGs, the gray part of the magnified red area is human based...


I hope you're all feeling really guilty now.





posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Just to clear something up: Jrod never claimed to have a PHD. he claimed he had actual PHD's who backed up his 40% increase numbers. While I agree the two names he gave would back that up, I looked them up by name on many journals and can find no peer reviewed papers concerning climate change. That is the reason I never addressed anything he said when it came to the two professors he had during his 12 months in college. He also only had them for one class each it seems?

Also, you and The Son of Law have used my name many times as I also do not think man plays a huge part in warming nor are they the sole provider of the increase. I have backed this up with peer reviewed published papers in credited scientific journals.

To clarify, I do indeed believe man plays a part in warming. I see nothing scientifically that counters that. I do agree with you that co2 follows warming, but it seems pretty evident that it then assists with warming, although not very much. So if someone asked me a yes or no question: Do humans cause warming? I would have to answer yes. However, it is so minuscule it means nothing in the big picture.

My career in Atmospheric Science led me to a research facility in HI where we studied plasma phenomena. I came to the conclusion that our weather seems to be driven primarily by factors external to our planet. For example, we found that thunderstorms seem to be caused by current flow that seems to originate from the sun. Certain parts of the planet seem to be better conductors than others and those areas seem to correlate to gravity maps of the planet. I feel this side of science has become horrendously under funded for about 20 years, mainly because money only flows to pro AGW research facilities. The only reason I was able to work in my research field was because the DoD funded it specifically to research how to keep LOE's from getting blown out of orbit (not literally) (because apparently that happened a lot up until around 1998, systems getting randomly fried, on board explosions etc, usually related to sprite activity)

I do not believe co2 causes as much warming as we thought, and papers are starting to come out that address that, especially since 2013. I really think Carl Sagan was way off on what a runaway greenhouse is, and linked a peer reviewed paper earlier that showed co2 can only be responsible for 12% of Venus' warming, even though it makes up 96% of the atmosphere.

You see, even in the early 2000's we were still learning about the effects of co2. We knew it had a logarithmic effect long before then, but especially in the last 10 years we have started to learn it's effects diminish far quicker than previously thought, and that at a certain point no longer contribute to warming whatsoever as it's effects are exponentially diminutive. It seems to have a strong warming effect early on and up to a certain point. That point is about 600PPM. At that point it slows down drastically, needing to double in PPM for each phase of warming effects to be seen.

So 600 PPM, then 1200 PPM, then 3600 PPM, then 7200 PPM etc. 7200 PPM would account for about 6? Celsius. Even if our atmosphere was 1% co2 (10,000 PPM) we would still breath without issue and would only have bout a 5-7 Celsius increase. In fact, did you know that that in an atmosphere with 1% co2 many insects considered pests to plants and trees can no longer survive yet humans are totally fine (except for a few week humans who may occasionally feel drowsy)? In fact, our earths history has had the best flora and fauna when our co2 levels were between .2 and .5%. Forests actually SLOW DOWN their intake of co2 to allow an increase in co2 to help other vegetation when co2 drops to what are considered drastically low levels for plants. Guess what is considered drastically low... This may explain why so much of the co2 increase has a naturally occurring isotope.

www.sciencedaily.com...
www.egu.eu...
phys.org...

co2 isn't the problem. Other things in our atmosphere are. We are poisoning ourselves, not our planet. We could offset mans entire co2 contribution with reforestation. If you took half the money we gave use for funding faulty science to a green movement commited to getting forest levels back up, we'd completely offset all of humanity's co2 within 50 years.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
Making pictures of 400 parts per million and saying "SEE!!!" is idiot pseudoscience, when actual science has worked on the problem for many decades quantitatively using real laws of physics & chemistry and observations.

Would anybody argue in some chemical engineering problem that 400 ppm can't possibly do anything because, uh, because, uh, it's only 0.04%? Completely contrary to decades of work on that very problem? Obviously not, this is intended as self-satifactory truthiness for people to be comfortable with their prejudices motivated by a distaste for the economic & political consequences of the actual science and moral responsibility.

To reinforce this point, consider that scientists discovered a new, even deadlier form of botox late last year. How deadly?

It takes an injection of just 2 billionths of a gram or inhaling 13 billionths of a gram to kill an adult.

For reference, the average male in the U.S. weighs just under 82 kilograms. Some simple math:
Deadly dosage by inhalation: 13 x 10^-9 grams
Average U.S. Male weight: 82 x 10^3 grams
Ratio of deadly dosage to average U.S. Male weight: ~1.585 x 10^-13
Converted to percentage: 0.00000000001585%
Converted to ppm: 0.0000001585ppm will kill you.

While I'm not arguing that more CO2 will literally kill the Earth, I am arguing that more CO2 has an effect on the Earth.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Your argument is hugely flawed. One is a deadly toxin, the other is not.

Do me a favor, how much temp increase would 10,000 PPM of co2 cause and what effect would it have on the planet and humans?

a reply to: Greven



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Your argument is hugely flawed. One is a deadly toxin, the other is not.

Do me a favor, how much temp increase would 10,000 PPM of co2 cause and what effect would it have on the planet and humans?

You misunderstand the point. I clearly pointed out that they are not the same in my post. ElectricUniverse attempted to downplay any effect from an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by pointing out how small of a percentage of the atmosphere is composed of CO2. The obvious counterargument is to demonstrate how minute quantities of other substances can produce profound effects in other environments.

Quite frankly, I don't know how much temperature increase such a vast change in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere would cause. You claim it would cause a 5-7 degree Celsius temperature increase in your last post. That is immense, on a global scale; roughly the difference between our last major ice age and the modern era.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Ever had a saltwater aquarium?

Trying to maintain a habitat in one of those will show how much a small change in a vital, but trace amount, of a chemical can destroy the ecosystem.

There are a lot of other ways we are causing harm to this planet, no doubt about it.

While I think it is foolish to minimize the spike in CO2 we have caused, luck and space weather do have an enormous impact on our climate. This I have never doubted.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I see your point, I still feel like it approaches it with an alarmist attitude.

Yes, a 7 degree increase would be massive. An average global temp of 75f (23c) would be no ice whatsoever and much higher sea levels. However, as temperature increases history tells us that extremes become less apparent. So in the past when global temps have been higher, changes in seasonal weather were more moderate and there were fewer to no deserts. We would also have thousands and thousands of miles of more coastline and liveable land as well as more access to water for land locked areas.

I personally feel all our "green" tax dollars should be going to the human ability to adapt to climate change that we can't prevent.


a reply to: Greven


edit on 15-7-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Is there still human-emitted CO2 in the atmosphere? If yes, then we are clearly causing some impact. I believe raymunduko answered that one earlier.



AGAIN, just because CO2 is a GHG it doesn't mean that it must cause the catastrophic warming you and the rest of the AGW crowd claim it causes... More so when the "catastrophic warming" has been shown not to exist. CO2 is a poor ghg. It does not causes the "massive warming" that the AGW camp keep claiming it does.





originally posted by: Greven
And solar irradiance was different in the past, the Sun's output was different, etc. There are many, many factors - not just CO2.


And CO2 has shown throughout the history of Earth's geological past not to cause "massive warming" like you and the other AGW followers keep claiming.



originally posted by: Greven
You deny that CO2 can cause warming?



One small candle does warm as well, but you are implying, alongside the other AGW followers that one small candle can warm an entire "open cave" the size of an stadium... BTW, yes I am aware that CO2 is a gas and a ghg, but that doesn't mean it causes the "massive warming" people like you keep claiming it causes.




originally posted by: Greven
You ignore science dating back into the late 1800s. More CO2 in an atmosphere will cause warming, ceteris paribus. This is beyond question. I fail to see a reason to keep responding to posts if you believe this.


If you are talking about Arrhenius HE WAS WRONG... Arrhenius claimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2, from levels in the 1800s, would cause a temperature increase of 5C -6C... He supposedly adjusted the value to 1.6C but also stated that water vapor would only cause 2.1C, when water vapor is 10 TIMES stronger than CO2 and it exists at much higher levels than CO2... Not to mention that, again, in the Troposphere, which is the atmospheric layer of Earth's temperature where all the surface climate and surface weather events occur, water vapor accounts for 95% -98% or so of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 accounts for about 2% up to 5% tops.

CO2 is a poor ghg, while water vapor is far more potent and exists at higher levels yet all the fault is given to CO2 by the AGW camp because 99.999% water vapor is NATURAL...

However, that didn't stop the EPA from trying to make water vapor a pollutant as well... lol



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: mbkennel
Making pictures of 400 parts per million and saying "SEE!!!" is idiot pseudoscience, when actual science has worked on the problem for many decades quantitatively using real laws of physics & chemistry and observations.

Would anybody argue in some chemical engineering problem that 400 ppm can't possibly do anything because, uh, because, uh, it's only 0.04%? Completely contrary to decades of work on that very problem? Obviously not, this is intended as self-satifactory truthiness for people to be comfortable with their prejudices motivated by a distaste for the economic & political consequences of the actual science and moral responsibility.

To reinforce this point, consider that scientists discovered a new, even deadlier form of botox late last year.
...
While I'm not arguing that more CO2 will literally kill the Earth, I am arguing that more CO2 has an effect on the Earth.


What the hell does "botox" have to do with CO2 and Climate Change?...



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
Ever had a saltwater aquarium?

Trying to maintain a habitat in one of those will show how much a small change in a vital, but trace amount, of a chemical can destroy the ecosystem.

There are a lot of other ways we are causing harm to this planet, no doubt about it.

While I think it is foolish to minimize the spike in CO2 we have caused, luck and space weather do have an enormous impact on our climate. This I have never doubted.



So tell us, how are you going to stop UNDERWATER VOLCANOES from warming the Antarctic and other ocean areas by sequestering atmospheric CO2?...


Underwater volcanoes heating Antarctic waters

Newly discovered volcanoes almost two miles tall

11 Jul 2011 - Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands.



Sea-floor mapping technology reveals volcanoes beneath the sea surface

Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface — some up to 3km (1.86 miles) high. They found 5km (3 mile) diameter craters left by collapsing volcanoes and 7 active volcanoes visible above the sea as a chain of islands.

According to a press release from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), "this sub-sea landscape, with its waters warmed by volcanic activity creates a rich habitat for many species of wildlife and adds valuable new insight about life on earth." (Italics added)

The research is also important for understanding what happens when volcanoes erupt or collapse underwater and their potential for creating serious hazards such as tsunamis

Speaking at the International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences in Edinburgh Dr Phil Leat from British Antarctic Survey said,

“There is so much that we don’t understand about volcanic activity beneath the sea — it’s likely that volcanoes are erupting or collapsing all the time. The technologies that scientists can now use from ships not only give us an opportunity to piece together the story of the evolution of our earth, but they also help shed new light on the development of natural events that pose hazards for people living in more populated regions on the planet.”
...

www.antarctica.ac.uk...

There are an estimated 3,477,403 underwater volcanoes on Earth. the following map shows some of these underwater volcanoes aka seamounts.



In 2012 ATS member Snarky 412 posted the following video showing this warming from underwater volcanoes around and below the Antarctic.

Here is her thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is the video she showed us on that thread.




posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why must you live with your head in a dark place, while making wild accusations and asking impossible questions.

Runaway effect do happen in nature, and happen quickly.

Try to maintain a saltwater aquarium with that logic.....

Nothing that you just posted has anything to do with the man made CO2 problem.

40% and rising.
edit on 16-7-2014 by jrod because: back for more i see



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
...

I fail to see how the salinity of the ocean decreased during a time when ocean levels should have been on the decline. Perhaps you can link a source to this, as well?


Yes, I did make a mistake in that post, but it wasn't because I don't understand how salinity decreases during warm periods, and increases during cold periods. It was a mistake from responding to two different posts at the same time and the fact that I was very tired and was in a hurry.

Heck, do you need me to post other responses in the past where I have written about the desalination process?

But do tell us, how is it possible that during other warm periods such as the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm periods, that CO2 levels were lower than now yet temperatures were much higher than now? Not to mention the fact that during those warm periods fresh water from glaciers should have also caused the oceans salinity to change more extensively than now yet there were no "massive die-offs"?



edit on 16-7-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The planet is changing that is a fact like it or lump it, Like anyone here is going to do anything about it or even can do anything about it, we all like the modern world we live in, you know the cause of what some may think is causing the change, After page pointed me in the right direction of researching temps and ice core data I have come to the conclusion no one actually knows what is going on, some best guesses at best. But that is all we have to go on.

My self i will adapt easy to the coming changes as in my life time they will not be that harsh but in 1000 years or so that might change, will i care no because there are to many other variables to consider.

To me science is about the asking of questions, if something does not look or even feel right keep asking questions.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why must you live with your head in a dark place, while making wild accusations and asking impossible questions.

Runaway effect do happen in nature, and happen quickly.

Try to maintain a saltwater aquarium with that logic.....

Nothing that you just posted has anything to do with the man made CO2 problem.

40% and rising.


What in the world are you talking about now?...

I have posted other research papers in which scientists state that they have been able to link ocean warming to be caused by some other factor and not by the atmosphere.

There are other factors that are warming the oceans, and are also warming glaciers which have nothing to do with CO2... Going after CO2 is not going to stop these other natural factors, including underwater volcanoes, from melting sea ice and glaciers...



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

You misunderstand the point. I clearly pointed out that they are not the same in my post. ElectricUniverse attempted to downplay any effect from an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by pointing out how small of a percentage of the atmosphere is composed of CO2. The obvious counterargument is to demonstrate how minute quantities of other substances can produce profound effects in other environments.

Quite frankly, I don't know how much temperature increase such a vast change in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere would cause. You claim it would cause a 5-7 degree Celsius temperature increase in your last post. That is immense, on a global scale; roughly the difference between our last major ice age and the modern era.


sorry but that's BS.. Botox has nothing in common with atmospheric CO2... CO2 is not toxic... Just because too much CO2, as in THOUSANDS ppm CO2, can kill you doesn't make it a toxic gas... Heck, too much water can kill you too, and too much oxygen or nitrogen can kill you as well.. The Oxygen Dilemma: Can Too Much O2 Kill? Without it, cells die. With too much, they die even faster

Eating too much can kill you, exercising too much can cause damage and even kill you... ANYTHING in excess can kill you... But just because too much CO2 can kill you it doesn't mean it is toxic as you are trying to imply...



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join