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.

 

A really stupid global warming question

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
There has not been a temperature rise for the last 16 years, and with ice still on lake Superior at the beginning of June this year, perhaps the 'warming' has ended? in any case, with atmospheric CO2 at 400 parts per million, less than one percent, I just cannot fathom so little doing so much.
Volcanic activity has gone up 300% in the last 2,000 years, I wonder what effect that's had on the 'weather' ?
Remember after 9/11 when no aircraft flew for three days? how the air temperature rose because there were no aircraft con. trails? ( having the same effect as no clouds).
I don't think 'science' will ever properly understand 'weather', or 'climate' .



Where did you hear the 911 contrail stuff lol?



So no evidence will be good enough because you don't like the source? That's like refusing to leave a burning building because you don't like the person who told you it was on fire...

Are you a conservative Christian? If so that explains your brainwashedness.


Science is true weather you believe it or not.




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
Where did you hear the 911 contrail stuff lol?




CONTRAIL HIATUS
At least that was the case until September 11, 2001. For the first time since the jet age began, virtually all aircraft were grounded over the United States for three days. Even as they tried like the rest of us to absorb the enormity of the terrorist attacks, climatologists realized they had an unprecedented opportunity to scrutinize individual contrails, and several studies were quickly launched.
One study looked at the aforementioned contrails that grew to cover 7,700 square miles. Those condensation trails arose in the wake of six military aircraft flying between Virginia and Pennsylvania on September 12, 2001. From those isolated contrails, unmixed as they were with the usual dozens of others, Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langely Research Center, and his colleagues were able to gain valuable insight into how a single contrail forms. Those once-in-a-lifetime data sets are so useful that Minnis is about to analyze them again in an expanded study.


Link to source

There are some others too, but they all say the same things.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ArtemisE
Where did you hear the 911 contrail stuff lol?




CONTRAIL HIATUS
At least that was the case until September 11, 2001. For the first time since the jet age began, virtually all aircraft were grounded over the United States for three days. Even as they tried like the rest of us to absorb the enormity of the terrorist attacks, climatologists realized they had an unprecedented opportunity to scrutinize individual contrails, and several studies were quickly launched.
One study looked at the aforementioned contrails that grew to cover 7,700 square miles. Those condensation trails arose in the wake of six military aircraft flying between Virginia and Pennsylvania on September 12, 2001. From those isolated contrails, unmixed as they were with the usual dozens of others, Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langely Research Center, and his colleagues were able to gain valuable insight into how a single contrail forms. Those once-in-a-lifetime data sets are so useful that Minnis is about to analyze them again in an expanded study.


Link to source

There are some others too, but they all say the same things.



I stand corrected.....wait I don't like the source!!!! So NO!


J/k I stand corrected. Lol



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Greven

For you and other people who are on the fence or otherwise skeptical:
1) Do you believe CO2 causes heating?

Based on what I have learned it does. But my question is, since we have always had CO2 (dinosaur farts), how much is the right amount? Plants need it. They crave it. And can that change with other factors?


2) Do you believe that CO2 concentration has been increasing?

Studies show that yes, that is the case. That, as far as I understand, isn't up for debate, it's recorded fact.


3) Do you believe sea ice is decreasing?

I am not sure. Not to be a dumbass, but I hear reports both ways. And I found out the other day that the ice caps have completely disappeared in the past and came back. So this is something I need to better understand.


4) Do you believe the Sun influences the Earth's climate?

Since it's our only source of warmth, I'd have to say yes.

How did I do?

Well enough. Let me address a few things, though.

1) CO2 is absorbed by plants with water and sunlight to drive food production in plants (part of the Calvin-Benson cycle), this is true. It can be beneficial to plants to some extent, but there are other factors. Primarily, though - humans haven't lived through a time period with high CO2 concentrations. Plants have, but in a selfish consideration, we have not. Remember, all of these charts you see with big increases and decreases in temperature in human times have very small temperature fluctuations - a few degrees Celsius, globally. The temperature change from an ice age to a warmer period averages 5 (4-7 range) degrees Celsius and takes 5000 years to rise that far. Since the Industrial Revolution, the Earth has been warming roughly ten times as fast.

2) Thank you. Many people who are skeptical seem to think CO2 concentration has not risen, including highly educated people who should otherwise believe it.

3) I mention this mostly because it comes up in various threads that the Antarctic is gaining ice. The underlying tone to this is that we must not be warming, because there is more ice. This is false, despite the fact that the sea ice in the Antarctic is showing an increasing trend. It's also false that the global sea ice extent is increasing; rather the opposite - it's trending downwards, due to the Arctic losing much more sea ice than the Antarctic is gaining. Let me illustrate it with a few bar graphs (rather than line, I find it illustrates it better in this instance) and their trendlines:




4) This I highlight because, during the so-called pause in rising temperatures, the Earth has been receiving less heat from the Sun. If solar irradiance were not diminished, we would be seeing even higher temperature increases, in my opinion. A lot of people on both sides of the argument might disagree with me here, but here's recorded temperature and recorded/reconstructed solar irradiance side-by-side:


Thanks for taking the time to learn about this stuff.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven


Thanks for taking the time to learn about this stuff.


Thanks for taking the time to explain.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ismail

originally posted by: pikestaffI don't think 'science' will ever properly understand 'weather', or 'climate' .


Science is pushing back the limits of our knowledge every single day.

In the past, every person who has said "there will be a point past which we will not be able to go" has been wrong.
Given the content of your post, chances are that we already understand far more about "weather" and "climate" than you think.

With respect, you would probably see that if you lost the bias and actually did some research (hint: research isn't browsing through blogs that fit in with the opinion that you have already have).


The rest of Pikestaff's post is perfectly reasonable and questioning, he/she may or may not have bias, but it is not apparent in that post, and why should you tell he/she what to do, or how to think. It seems to me bias is not just one sided here, and given that the whole theory of 'climate change' is something than is ongoing it is not over, done or dusted. Both sides of the debate should take note of that, and because it is ongoing that means we all don't know the full story, and probably won't know for some time yet.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: swanne

I have seen that too. But if the global temps have only risen 1 degree (overall) and there was a + or - 2 degree variance in most models, then perhaps CO2 isn't the driver of rising temps. But I am far from qualified to even speculate on that.

edit to add:
it's hard not to like a minion.



So there was a +1 degree change when a +2 to -2 was predicted??? +1 is in-between those two numbers.....


We know co2 makes things get hotter. Put 2 bottles of air and water in the sun. Then drop a co2 tablet into one. The one with the tablet will get way hotter.


Funny thing is, 0 is in between +2 and -2 as well. Sounds like a Richard Hogland attempt to make math justify perspective. Pretty easy to have a reliable prediction when using a range like that considering the amount of change per year. But another funny thing is that even if the change is 0, it still falls within the range and thereby "proves" AGW. LOL

I think you might concur, "And the sheep look up," eh ;-)

Cheers - Dave



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join