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.

 

New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
If we had increased volcanic activity that would account for the increasing amounts of c02 in the atmosphere, I would agree that its a natural occurring process, but we don't the c02 is coming from our emissions.

We humans are causing it.


So are you suggesting that increased CO2 can't come from anywhere else except from volcanic activity, therefore it must be human because all other sources have been eliminated?

I strongly disagree.

In fact:

1) We don't yet know of EVERY CO2 source and sink on the planet.
2) Because of #1, we do not have the ability to date, to correctly measure all CO2 that is stored.
3) Because of #2, we can never effectively measure the rate of CO2 emission and absorption.
4) Different plants emit CO2 at different rates and can't be accurately measured so are approximated and grouped together as "all plants" instead.
5) Emissions from bacteria are not factored in to current measurements, yet account for a massive sink in both the oceans (anaerobic bacteria) and soil.

In statistics, what happens when you average an average? You lose the details.

And this is what they count on, is that you won't care about the details or that they can make them seem irrelevant. They certainly are relevant.

Almost all of these numbers and "measurements" are approximations, based on averages and other approximations. On top of that, as much as some would like you to believe we can account for every CO2 source on the planet, you can quickly Google around and find out how far off we really are.

You are drinking the kool-aid if you think that the only way for CO2 to increase is either volcanoes or humans.

~Namaste
edit on 4-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: correction




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

What about non-volcanic CO2 emissions?


In the last decades the Earth degassing process has been intensely investigated in Italy where many CO2 rich gas emissions are located. The gas emitted not from active volcanoes occasionally cause animal and human fatalities and have permanently damaged ecosystems and plant life, making environments inhospitable (Chiodini et al., 2008).


Where does it come from if nof volcanoes?


Deeply derived gases dissolved in regional aquifers, map of CO2 Earth degassing, quantification of the process. The regional extension, and the magnitude, of the Earth degassing process over the entire central and southern Italy, has been highlighted by Chiodini et al. (2000; 2004; 2011) based on the investigation of the origin of the carbon dissolved by the groundwater circulating in the large regional carbonate aquifers of the Apennines.


Is there enough to be significant?




This map highlighted the presence of two large CO2 degassing structures: the first includes Tuscany, Latium and Umbria regions (TRDS), while the second coincides with the Tyrrhenian sector of the Campania region (CDS). The two structures release a relevant amount of CO2 (∼10 Mt/yr), an amount which is globally significant representing ∼5-10% of the estimated global CO2 emission from active volcanoes.


Extended Abstracts Book

If there is deep CO2 in Italy, don't you think there might be some elsewhere as well?
edit on 4-9-2014 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I know of another study with 99.9% certainty.

It is absolutely true in a strictly scientific way and holding to rigid standards of statistical analysis.

I use a quote from it at the bottom of my posts.

To repeat:

A recent study found that adult human beings on average have one testicle and one enlarged mammary gland.

This is true, and can be said to be true with a 99.9% certainty.

As a former professor who taught research methods, any study that concludes their theory is 99.9% correct, is deeply flawed and the statistics are skewed purposely to reach the conclusion the author set out to reach. In other words, the study is 99.9% likely to be fraudulent.



edit on 3Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:36:42 -0500pm90409pmk044 by grandmakdw because: grammar



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower
How can most of you people not believe that the human race is behind global warming. The human population has exploded in less than 200 years. Every person creates heat and waste. We had the industrial revolution where the very air we breath in cities was so polluted it caused tens of thousands of deaths. During the revolution massive factories with engines churned out power but with effeciencys of little more than 15% . Most households relied on ineefecient coal fires for heating and cooking, lighting was provided by candles, millions of candles. Then we move forward in time a little and the civilised world is powered by gas and oil. Gas street lighting, gas heating 45% efficient. In the name of progress wild fires are started around the globe to allow for more pasture land. Then we move on a bit more and we start lobbing bombs at each other, start gassing each other, start burning each other. Then some bright spark invents a weapon with the power of the sun, and he lets it off, not once, not twice but hundreds of times. Then we really start to populate like rats and to keep us happy they let us have big engines in our cars and heating systems that can turn our houses into a sauna. Factories start spewing mega quantities of pollutants into the air and sea. Farming becomes a systematic intense protein process on a massive scale. Air travel becomes affordable to the masses with thousands of aircraft in the air at any one time. The world is in a boom. Well most of it . Africa is suffering from mass droughts. Africa, the bread basket of the world .
WHAT YOUR ALL MISSING IS THAT HEAT ENERGY ISN'T DESTROYED, IT MOVES, IT DISSIPATES BUT IT'S STILL THERE. FROM THE MOST BASIC CHARCOAL STOVE IN AFRICA TO THE GUY WITH A 50KW BOILER AND A A V8 CAR . FROM THE FIRST EXPERIMENT WITH GUNPOWDER TO THE MULTI MEGATON NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS, THEY ALL GENERATE HEAT AND POLLOUTION. HEAT THAT DOESN'T DISSAPEAR, HEAT THAT MOVES, HEAT THAT IS INSULATED BY THE POLLOUTION WE PUT IN THE ATMOSPHERE. EVERY LIGHTBULB, EVERY CIGARETTE, EVERY COAL FIRE, EVERY COOKER ADDS TO THIS .




AND YOU THINK IT'S NATURAL ?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: da pickles

Well, for the past at least 10 years there has been no worldwide warming, rather a cooling trend.
www.globalresearch.ca...

When I was young scientists were warning everyone of a coming ice age caused by the exact items that people are now saying cause global warming.
"You say tomato I say tomaato" (an ancient song)

I have a meteorologist friend at NASA who says all the evidence points to billions of years of warming and cooling cycles, these cycles began long long long before human beings roamed the earth.




edit on 3Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:41:58 -0500pm90409pmk044 by grandmakdw because: grammar



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: da pickles

No, they seem to think heat just mysteriously goes away.

Like the "heat island" effect.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Weird, because that "global cooling" was only promoted by a few publications and not a lot of scientists. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

By the way, of the last 16 years, 9 of them have been so exceptionally hot that they are statistical outliers in the measured temperature record. What happens if you normalize the outliers? What happens if you change the dates juuuust a bit?

Warming trend. The "pause" is little more than a statistical trick.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Not just global warming...that's actually the least of your troubles.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Read this, it answers all your questions.

www.globalresearch.ca...

I'd copy the pic in but it won't copy for me, so just click and read away.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: kx12x
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein


Anyways, I said if global warming is real then I would highly suspect humans are to blame! What else could cause temperatures to go up when we are the only things on Earth polluting the air?

Don't be so sure about that.


In my opinion, it's a natural occurrence that humans have very little if any effect on.

I do agree that many things need to be changed, pollution of natural resources is a big problem and it's only getting worse. Oceans being used as garbage dumps, rivers and lakes filled with mercury run off from coal power plants for example. If it's not dealt with now, Earth will become uninhabitable. But, that's another topic all it's own.


I wanted to quote you because we DO need to put this into perspective.

The study ran from 1951 to 2010. The Earth is, well, a little older than that.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

That site uses a completely madeup chart. Perhaps I can show you quickly why?


So no, I have no reason to trust it when it uses blatantly wrong information.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Lot's of scientists have been saying things like this for a long time. It's real folks...We're killing ourselves. Global warming is just one of the ways.. if we could only stop polluting everything on this earth, we'd be okay.. our oceans, our groundwater, our atmosphere, our rivers and streams, our forests...we just can't stop polluting everything.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

That chart has no date for "present day" to relate anything.

Look at the temps. The range is in single degrees Celsius. We've warmed at least 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880. That is not present on that chart.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Ahh I remember back in the day when the Ozone layer was the crisis, and how we all needed to start using "roll-on" deodorants to keep us all from bursting into flames by the year 2000 or whatever it was. Back then the science was settled.
Before that I had "Woody the Owl" telling me how we were all going to be neck deep in landfill by the time I was 30, and how we somehow needed to "launch our trash into orbit" or somesuch. The science was settled.
Anyway here we are in 2014 and "climate change" is a certainty, we are all going die... the science is after all settled.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: beezzer

That chart has no date for "present day" to relate anything.

Look at the temps. The range is in single degrees Celsius. We've warmed at least 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880. That is not present on that chart.


The chart clearly shows a cyclic nature to climate.

Why is this constantly ignored???



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Who the hell cares what the chart shows when the chart is glaringly wrong about basic information?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: beezzer

Who the hell cares what the chart shows when the chart is glaringly wrong about basic information?


Just because the chart doesn't agree with your preconceptions, doesn't mean it is wrong.

Please.

Show me, then, another chart covering the same time frame, if you have it.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

What are you talking about?

The 0.8 degrees Celsius or higher increase is not on that chart. Ergo, the chart is wrong. Fin. The end. Nothing more to say. Do I have to show you a chart that the sky is blue, too?

NASA says it's higher than +1 degree Celsius change since 1880 (the "measured temperature" period shown on that chart).



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Do you have a chart proving your assertions that climate change is mad-made going back from the last Ice Age?

If not, then all you have is words and a very biased opinion.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

No, your strawmen are not acceptable. Do it yourself. And biased opinions?

Look. At. The. Chart:

originally posted by: kx12x

Do you see a SOURCE for this chart anywhere?
Do you see a DATE for "Present Day" anywhere?
Do you see the temperature range on the chart?
Do you see the "thermometer record?"
Do you see that it in no way corresponds to a 0.8+ degrees Celsius increase?

Either the chart is wrong, or it is being misrepresented as "present day" on this chart is well before 1950.
edit on 16Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:16:05 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join