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: 35
50
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

I'm also aware that throughout Earth's entire history, with only one notable exception before the current time, CO2 levels have ALWAYS been higher, and generally MUCH higher, than they are now. The argument that the other side is making is that Earth's history is entirely irrelevant - until you get to the Ice Ages.


1) Humans didn't exist until recently, and civilization dependent on agriculture, even more recently still, and such civilization using a signifcant fraction of the planet's arable land even less, and 9 billion people even less still.

You don't recognize the enormous time intervals of geological history. 100 million years ago, the continents were in different places, and many classes of animals now didn't exist then and vice versa. There were barely mammals. And 100 million years is a small fraction of the 4.6 billion age of the Earth.

Let's see 100 million years ago:



The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate, resulting in high eustatic sea levels and creating numerous shallow inland seas. These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct marine reptiles, ammonites and rudists, while dinosaurs continued to dominate on land


What about humans?



Humans evolved from a lineage of upright-walking apes whose earliest fossils date from over 6 million years ago.[82]


6 millino years is really small and back then proto-human brains were the size of chimps's.

2) The Sun had lower output over large geological times. This is very significant meaning that with the same CO2 today as then, it would be significantly hotter today than in the past.


Then it suddenly becomes relevant, and we can start calling it "pre-industrial" for purposes of CO2 comparison. The other 99.9+ percent of Earth's history suddenly do not matter. That was somehow not "pre-industrial".


They do not matter for human policy purposes!



There are reasons for all of these verbal manipulations intended to promote the notion of "industrial" (i.e "bad") and "pre-industrial" (i.e. "good"), and limiting the "good" and "pre-industrial" to a time frame that is politically expedient.


Baloney. "Entirety of human civilization until fossil fuel use" is a long enough period for determining a good baseline for continued human existence with 9 billion people.

So the Cretaceous was about 4 degrees C warmer. We're going to get 4 degrees C easy with current rate without changes and maybe 6 to 8. That's absolutely ENORMOUS change in 150 years.
edit on 14-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: nenothtu
When does the "pre-industrial" figure you cite come from? What year? An approximate year will do -and what percentage of the 4.5 billion years or so of Earth's existence does that tiny span account for?


Pre-industrial CO2 in this field means the level which existed from the end of the previous Ice Age, to about 1750.

It's a small percentage of Earth's geological history and the entirety of human civilization.

Appealing to "dinosaurs and plants were around when CO2 was higher" is completely and dangerously irrelevant to appropriate behavior by humans NOW, at least as irrelevant as a shark's diet is to human health recommendations.


Exactly as I said above - the opposition is promoting the dangerous notion that only ice ages are now "relevant", and the remaining 99.9+ percent of Earth's history is somehow not relevant to Earth. Not only is the rest of Earth's history "not relevant" to them, it now appears to be "dangerously irrelevant".

So tell me, how are living organisms "irrelevant" to life? Why are the aberrations of ice ages the only "relevant" time to consider?


The question is not whether organisms will live (obviously) the question is whether human civilization will collapse or be seriously wounded as a result of human greed and stupidity.

Living organisms will survive global thermonuclear war. Still makes self-nuking ourselves a stupendously poor idea and nobody uses the survival of cockroaches as reason to "not worry about it and just get used to adaptation".


How does a "shark's diet" figure into this at all? Do they eat CO2 and excrete O2 or something?



It's an analogy.


Appealing to "dinosaurs and plants were around when CO2 was higher" is completely and dangerously irrelevant to appropriate behavior by humans NOW, at least as irrelevant as a shark's diet is to human health recommendations




edit on 14-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

A poor analogy.

Do you suggest that humans will go extinct because the planet warms by 6 degrees?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: mbkennel

A poor analogy.

Do you suggest that humans will go extinct because the planet warms by 6 degrees?


Extinct? Literally, no. Collapse of significant technological civilization supporting 9 billion people in comfort, quite possibly yes.

Major wars, famines, disasters, droughts, possibly. A collapse like going from the height of the Roman Empire (say Aurelius) to the Dark Ages.

6 degrees C is a titanic climate change as a global average.

The Ice Ages were 4-6 degrees C colder than preindustrial civilizatnion.

There was almost no agriculture then. Ice was miles thick in New York. What do you think a Heat Age in the other direction might be like?
edit on 14-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

1) Humans didn't exist until recently, and civilization dependent on agriculture, even more recently still, and such civilization using a signifcant fraction of the planet's arable land even less, and 9 billion people even less still.



So the creation of more deserts and tundra, and less arable land, via an artificially low temperatures would be your solution? Assuming that humans were capable of that, too, that is...




You don't recognize the enormous time intervals of geological history. 100 million years ago, the continents were in different places, and many classes of animals now didn't exist then and vice versa. There were barely mammals. And 100 million years is a small fraction of the 4.6 billion age of the Earth.



Oh, I DO recognize how large those time intervals are - but that is irrelevant in a discussion of climate - climate still existed, 100 million years ago, 1 billion years ago, or 4.6 billion years ago. The existence of mammals is also irrelevant in a discussion of climate - climate did not just suddenly pop into being at the same time mammals did.

What we are discussing, it seems, is what sort of climate is "best". I happen to believe that one that promotes health to the planet itself is "better" for individual organisms, regardless of their taxonomic classification. As a matter of fact, those huge swaths of time periods during which the planet was significantly warmer do tend to argue in favor of that being the norm, rather than our current ice age.




Let's see 100 million years ago:

- - -
The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate, resulting in high eustatic sea levels and creating numerous shallow inland seas. These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct marine reptiles, ammonites and rudists, while dinosaurs continued to dominate on land
- - -

What about humans?

- - -
Humans evolved from a lineage of upright-walking apes whose earliest fossils date from over 6 million years ago.[82]
- - -

6 millino years is really small and back then proto-human brains were the size of chimps's.



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here - are you claiming that smaller brains are more optimal for survival? Do you believe that pointing out how life diversifies and flourishes under warmer temperatures is the best way to go about claiming that is bad for the planet?




2) The Sun had lower output over large geological times. This is very significant meaning that with the same CO2 today as then, it would be significantly hotter today than in the past.



While it is true that solar output changes over time, I don't think it changes in the way or to the degree that you seem to think it does. Solar output has changed by at most an increase of 25% over the entire course of it's existence, but complex organisms have experienced only the latter fraction of that - life developed and diversified under that increased solar radiation. There are, of course, other factors at play in calculating the effects of solar radiation rather than just CO2 levels. Albedo comes to mind as a far more important factor, and albedo can actually change as temperature changes, feeding off of itself and intensifying it's own effects.



"Then it suddenly becomes relevant, and we can start calling it "pre-industrial" for purposes of CO2 comparison. The other 99.9+ percent of Earth's history suddenly do not matter. That was somehow not "pre-industrial"."
- - -

They do not matter for human policy purposes!



Why not? Do humans exist only in a vacuum? What you're saying here is that other organisms and their health do not matter as far as humans are concerned? That we can get along fine without them? Seriously - I want to understand why you think only ice ages count in the consideration of "climate", why you believe humans cannot manage to exist in any other sort of climate where every other form of life flourishes.



There are reasons for all of these verbal manipulations intended to promote the notion of "industrial" (i.e "bad") and "pre-industrial" (i.e. "good"), and limiting the "good" and "pre-industrial" to a time frame that is politically expedient.


Baloney. "Entirety of human civilization until fossil fuel use" is a long enough period for determining a good baseline for continued human existence with 9 billion people.


We don't currently have 9 billion people, we have 7 billion. Set your time frame for "normal" whenever you like. I'm just calling it out and pointing out that the time frame you specify has been anything BUT "normal" in terms of climate for this planet.

I just happen to believe that if we are going to make it to having 9 billion people, we should probably hope for a healthier planet to feed them from, rather than trying to freeze it out.




So the Cretaceous was about 4 degrees C warmer. We're going to get 4 degrees C easy with current rate without changes and maybe 6 to 8. That's absolutely ENORMOUS change in 150 years.



Yeah, great, isn't it? I'm hoping we can make it a bit higher than that, personally, But I doubt it.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

The question is not whether organisms will live (obviously) the question is whether human civilization will collapse or be seriously wounded as a result of human greed and stupidity.



It's human greed and stupidity, and human civilization, right? Humanity will never be able to protect itself FROM itself, no matter what you do. If human civilization cannot adapt and roll with the punches, there is no particular reason it SHOULD survive. if it cannot adapt, it is already a failed experiment. Especially if it cannot adapt to MORE favorable conditions, much less the far LESS favorable conditions that the AGW folks are trying to push onto humanity.




Living organisms will survive global thermonuclear war. Still makes self-nuking ourselves a stupendously poor idea and nobody uses the survival of cockroaches as reason to "not worry about it and just get used to adaptation".



Did you seriously just try to inject a nuclear war into a non-nuclear-war discussion? Are you aware of what they call the logical fallacy where one tries to set up an irrelevant argument just for the purpose of knocking it down?




It's an analogy.

"Appealing to "dinosaurs and plants were around when CO2 was higher" is completely and dangerously irrelevant to appropriate behavior by humans NOW, at least as irrelevant as a shark's diet is to human health recommendations"




If it's an analogy, it must be analogous to something. What are you claiming the dietary requirements of a shark are analogous TO in a discussion of "climate" then, if not the CO2 levels? That would be the same as me trying to compare the diet of musk oxen to "human health recommendations" in the event that you could eradicate CO2 altogether - are you seriously not seeing the disconnect there?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: FarleyWayne
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ... ( March 2007 )

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

To my knowledge, that's been disproven:


The whole solar system could be moving through warmer outer space.

or a changing gravity gradient.


Wat?


I have never heard this before. Does this make sense to anyone else?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

Extinct? Literally, no. Collapse of significant technological civilization supporting 9 billion people in comfort, quite possibly yes.


How do you propose to feed those "9 billion people" in a climate of ice, tundra, and deserts?




Major wars, famines, disasters, droughts, possibly. A collapse like going from the height of the Roman Empire (say Aurelius) to the Dark Ages.



Ah. Business as usual then, as business was conducted in the idyllic "pre-industrial" era when CO2 levels and temperatures and the like were allegedly optimal, eh?




6 degrees C is a titanic climate change as a global average.



Yup, a fairly big change - but you've not made the argument that it would be a BAD change.




The Ice Ages were 4-6 degrees C colder than preindustrial civilizatnion.

There was almost no agriculture then. Ice was miles thick in New York. What do you think a Heat Age in the other direction might be like?



Opposite of what it was then, perhaps? Tropical, with thriving agriculture? That isn't unprecedented in Earth's history, you know, as I've been pointing out over and over and over again...



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: FarleyWayne
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ... ( March 2007 )

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

To my knowledge, that's been disproven:


The whole solar system could be moving through warmer outer space.

or a changing gravity gradient.


Wat?


I have never heard this before. Does this make sense to anyone else?


Not to me - "space" is intensely cold due to the vacuum involved. The individual molecules may be moving with a certain energy that otherwise would indicate a high temperature, but just not be densely enough packed to actually affect any temperatures. Radiation and EM energies are far more important to a discussion of temperatures in an astronomical sense. "Moving through warmer outer space" is not nearly as important from a local temperature perspective as the energy radiating from a central star, and in particular that portion of it falling incident upon a planet... the fraction of THAT being reflected away, and consequently the fraction of that fraction being absorbed into the surface to be re-radiated outward as "heat".



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

So wait, so we are clear, you think 6 degrees warmer is a "heat age"?



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

Why can't we see your resident time calculations? You claim to be an expert, therefore it should be easy for you to provide ATS with your resident time calculations(Need to see the work)?



Do you mean residence time? AKA "removal time"? The amount of time a particle (like a molecule of a gas) can be expected to reside in a system (like an atmosphere) before it is removed? I.e the one whose equation is "residence time = system capacity/ rate of flow through that system", or "t=V/q"?

Are you referring to that residence time, or some form of "resident time" that I've yet to hear of?



edit on 2015/5/16 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

So I miss spelled residence time....and you are all over that, it is almost like you want to make look like a fool over a simple mistake

Also, I am quite sure you had to google the term and I am not convinced you understand who the concept of residence time is relevant to the CO2 problem. It's been will over a decade since I took those classes that used those calculations. I just find it interesting that so many claim to have studied this topic, some even claim to hold advance degrees in the area(raymundoko), yet are unable to provide a resident time calculation that supports their claims.

Also another important concept is accounting for the sources and sinks of a molecule, in this case CO2: Σ SOURCES - Σ SINKS
edit on 16-5-2015 by jrod because: found Σ



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I understand residence time, and don't believe it has any special application to CO2 that doesn't apply to any particle in any other system. It's simply a measure of how long a substance can be expected to endure in a given system. It would certainly apply to CO2 (or O2 or nitrogen or methane or argon or any other gas or even particulate) in an atmosphere.

I have an advanced degree in neither meteorology nor climatology. My studies were in physics and astronomy. Residence time has a number of applications in physics, not just climatology.

Sources and sinks have every bit as much importance, and probably more so, than residence time in regards to CO2. How long it stays in the atmosphere is a moot point if there aren't enough sources to put it there to begin with, and sinks will affect the residence time by pulling it out (or not, in the event of a saturation, which isn't very likely here).

I understand you think I don't understand "the relevance of residence time to the CO2 problem" - what you seem to not be getting is that I don't see a "CO2 problem". Residence time is irrelevant to a nonexistent "problem". It comes, it hangs out a while, it goes. No problem. So I reckon in a way you're right - I don't see relevance to a "problem" that isn't a problem. I see relevance, just not to a "problem".

You see, this is the entire basis of our disagreement - you see a "problem" where I only see life and the mechanisms that maintain and promote it, planetary cycles that people had better either learn to live with, or get used to dying trying to fight them. The planet does not care. It will eat us and go on without even a belch if we keep fighting it instead of learning to get along with it.




edit on 2015/5/16 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Your request is absurd and unnecessary, we've gone over this. Still no comment on the peer reviewed papers?

a reply to: jrod



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
The issue is jrod doesn't understand residence time. I seriously doubt he took any classes in chemistry, atmospheric or otherwise. If he did he would realize the futility of his request.

a reply to: nenothtu



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

I say we adapt by using our brains and keeping the fossil carbon where it lay unmolested.

Why are you so confident a huge climate change in a short time will be better than a smaller climate change?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
I am not going to play your games. I did study this when I was a meteorology major at Florida Institute of Technology.

What is important with residence time, is with the CO2 sources being greater than the CO2 sinks, the residence time will increase.

Why don't you simply provide those links again, I do not have the time to waste digging through your posts. You keep claiming to have provided sources, not quite sure what you are trying to prove. It does appear to me that your replies to me attempt to discredit me without actually providing any real information regarding the topic.

More importantly, how can you two continue to deny the Industrial Age is the major player in the rise in CO2 we are currently observing?


edit on 17-5-2015 by jrod because: cellphone

edit on 17-5-2015 by jrod because: add



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Your request is absurd and unnecessary, we've gone over this. Still no comment on the peer reviewed papers?

a reply to: jrod



It is absurd that you claim to hold advance degrees yet can not accept the reality of the CO2 problem that we have created.

I want to take care of this planet, not continue to destroy it in the name of profit and power.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Please learn what the term temperature anomaly means and how it is calculated. (Hint, it is not the same as absolute temperatures). After having done so, revisit that idiotic blog. 2012 was the hottest year in North America on record.

You see, understanding the terms helps go a long way in understanding the science. The same applies to what the term heat wave index actually means. Yes, the heat waves of the 1930's have not been matched. But that's weather, not climate.


For how long has records been taken? 200 years? That is nothing in the big scheme of things. The period between ice ages is 10,000 to 20,000 years, and the ice ages themselves last for 10 times longer.

Climate change happens all the time and we should be grateful for it. Without climate change the planet would be dead and probably not warmer than 10 Kelvin. It would not be a nice place.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: moniker



For how long has records been taken? 200 years? That is nothing in the big scheme of things.

We're not really concerned with "the big scheme of things" though, are we?
We are concerned about the next 100 years or so, not the next 10,000.


edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join