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.

 

13 Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I commend your passion about Global warming, you do not give up easily, but remember while your passion is commendable, the real intentions behind the pushing of Global warming do no, always see both side of the issue or the debate will go on for ever.






edit on 29-9-2014 by marg6043 because: correcting




posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TheRedneck

The ice cores cover the past 800K years. At no time in the past 800K years were CO2 levels higher than they are now.


The CO2 levels in the ice cores are irrelevant because they come after temperature rises. That is nothing more than a catchy headline and is meaningless if the CO2 changes were caused by temperature changes before man was present. CO2 has been higher in past (not hundred of millions of years ago), and every other form of life that depends on CO2 and oxygen thrived and lived just fine. To try and hit the panic button because "CO2 levels are higher today than 800K years"... why stop at 800K years?

Because beyond that 800K, and you can't say that anymore... and history teaches us that life didn't perish and higher CO2 in the planet's past, much higher than today, did not kill the planet or cause an extinction event or a runaway greenhouse event.

For example....


A final concern related to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration is the worry that it may lead to catastrophic global warming. There is little reason to believe that such will ever occur, however, for several observations of historical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature suggest that it is climate change that drives changes in the air's CO2 content and not vice versa. In a study of the global warmings that signaled the demise of the last three ice ages, for example, Fischer et al. (1999) found that air temperature always rose first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2 some 400 to 1000 years later. Likewise, Petit et al. (1999) found that for all of the glacial inceptions of the past half-million years, air temperature consistently dropped before the air's CO2 content did, and that the CO2 decreases lagged the temperature decreases by several thousand years. In addition, the multiple-degree-Centigrade rapid warmings and subsequent slower coolings that occurred over the course of the start-and-stop demise of the last great ice age are typically credited with causing the minor CO2 concentration changes that followed them (Staufer et al., 1998); and there are a number of other studies that demonstrate a complete uncoupling of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature during periods of significant climate change (Cheddadi et al., 1998; Gagan et al., 1998; Raymo et al., 1998; Indermuhle et al., 1999).

Hence, there are no historical analogues for CO2-induced climate change; but there are many examples of climate change-induced CO2 variations.


Source

Here are some explanations of each referenced paper that is sourced above, which come from respected and reputable scientists in the field (ask yourself why you don't hear about these):

Fischer et al. (1999)

Petit et al. (1999)

Staufer et al., 1998

Cheddadi et al., 1998

Gagan et al., 1998

Raymo et al., 1998

Indermuhle et al., 1999

This is mostly to illustrate two things...

The science is not "settled" just because of a Youtube producer saying it is.

Second, I just posted a single paragraph from just one source (I can find plenty more, as can Electric Universe and others), with 7 different real scientists who all have peer-reviewed and published papers above (not a blog or SkepticalScience or ClimateAudit, etc.).

Add to that, the list of well-respected AGW proponents who have jumped ship and flat out told the entire AGW crowd that the models are worthless because they don't match observations, and yet, they keep using the models expecting different results.

True definition of insanity.

~Namaste



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into the details with you now; maybe later tonight. But thanks for answering my question.

Oh, you might want to look into the attempt to move that figure back to 1.5 million years. Apparently there's some ice that old in the Antarctic.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Temperatures mainly due to Milankovitch Cycles can precede CO2. However shortly after initial warming begins, CO2 and/or Greenhouse gases are released in greater quantity and take over as the driver for warming.

Do you entirely refute the Greenhouse Effect?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Actually the greenhouse effects was first used to claim global warming in the mid 1850s, but then when in the 50s and 60s the weather shifted to cooler trend it was believe that the CO2 were been absorbed by the oceans, when temperatures reversed back to previews warm, they are now telling that the ocean can only absolved so much of the CO2.

Sadly is not evidence to prove either, cooling or warming, but still is been pushed regardless.

All this only prove that earth can and will warm up and cool down until the next ice age comes around.


edit on 29-9-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The issue is that I could dispute the majority of his rebuttals to Mr. Sunglasses with peer-reviewed, scientific papers as well. That's the problem with this debate--it seems like he who has the most funding and loudest bull horn wins the argument, even if there is published scientific work out there that is just as credible that proves or suggest otherwise (or even just suggests that there's more to the puzzle and that we don't have it figured out, yet [which is the most accurate conclusion]).

I take all videos like this with a grain of salt until I research what is said (and I've researched everything brought up). Another problem is that most people do not, and since videos like this are the most prevalent and the subscribers to this data the loudest in the argument, it tends to win out over time.

But, yet, it it doesn't seem to be working. And while I rarely link to--or waste time reading--Mother Jones articles, I used their site to show that even they're covering the decline in belief/support for the global warming mouthpieces, albeit with a condescending tone (we're not "deniers," we are "skeptics").

Personally, I expect the earth to be warming due to the cyclical nature of our planet. We're still in the rebounds from a mini ice age, but we're also coinciding with the timing where we start heading back toward cooling, so it's no wonder there may be data for both warming and cooling on any given year (which isn't climate, it's weather...I know).

I always find it perplexing when articles like Mother Jones talk about time periods too short to be trustworthy data, or lack of weather stations here or there that lead to cherry picking of data from one side or the other. The truth is, we haven't had enough weather stations on earth--well, EVER, if we still don't today--to accurately measure everywhere and everything from earth. It wasn't until the invention of climate satellites that we could accurately measure the earth everywhere, so I only tend to trust that data when looking through scientific eyes. Doing so tends to suggest (or even prove) trends other than warming on a global scale.

Add into the mix that government agencies sometimes do whatever they can to try and fit the data to their narrative--that also sends up red flags for me. And then the same agencies go and launch satellites at the cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in order to try and prove their unproven hypotheses about CO2 and AGW--well, that just simply starts to piss people off who are paying attention to the costs of chasing this white rabbit.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TheRedneck

The ice cores cover the past 800K years. At no time in the past 800K years were CO2 levels higher than they are now.


True.

But the only thing for sure is the levels in the ice, not anywhere else.




posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Temperatures mainly due to Milankovitch Cycles can precede CO2. However shortly after initial warming begins, CO2 and/or Greenhouse gases are released in greater quantity and take over as the driver for warming.

Do you entirely refute the Greenhouse Effect?


Did you read the papers cited above?

Got a paper or something I can read to back your statements? I completely and totally disagree with your assertion.

Is there evidence to support what you are saying? Something, a paper or some data, that clearly shows that at some point historically, that CO2 drove temperature changes?

The trend of CO2 following temperature isn't just linked to Milankovich cycles. Over the same 800K year span that you cited previously, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that temperatures rise first, then the CO2 rises.

Do you entirely refute the Vostok data and the laws of cause and effect?

Take a second to really think about what you are implying...

The earth has gone through ice-ages and inter-glacial events several times. You are accepting that the Milankovich cycles cause these changes based on your statement above, but you are also saying that CO2 then "takes over as the driver of warming". Regardless of your wording, you are in fact admitting that temperature causes the CO2 to go up, but then don't want to let go of CO2 being the cause of warming, which it can't be if the temperature is the driver.

If that were the case, and you were correct, explain how would we ever get back to an ice age and what the driver would be?

Please, think about this for a moment to understand what you are saying and what I am saying.


You are stating that the effect of an increase in CO2 would be GREATER than the effect of the Milankovich cycles, which would further imply that the Milankovich cycles would be too weak to bring the earth back into an ice age. So then, that would mean that the Milankovich cycles could NOT be responsible for bringing the planet back to an ice age, because the CO2 change would overcome it.

Let's be very clear that there is no evidence to support that.

In fact, all of the evidence we do have points to the Milankovich cycles being a major driver of ice-ages, and also shows that regardless of CO2 levels, those cycles are more than enough to overcome those CO2 levels, lower the temperature, lower the CO2 and put the earth into an ice age... on numerous occasions. Keeping in mind that those cycles are directly linked to the amount of energy the earth receives from the SUN.

Do I refute the Greenhouse Effect? Certainly not, especially when you are growing something in a greenhouse, something which I am very, very familiar with.

I think you are very mistaken on the science if you think the planet is like a greenhouse. In a greenhouse, the whole purpose is to isolate warm air so that it isn't lost to convection, a process that isn't even considered in climate models, or in climate calculations at all.... because they can't measure it. (but nobody wants to talk about that either) Yet convection is one of the single largest (if not THE largest) contributor to changes in land, air and sea temperatures. In a greenhouse, CO2 is one of the most important components for a lush grow, in fact, so much so, that people spend money to buy CO2 tanks and pump extra CO2 into their greenhouse to increase yields, and because in most greenhouses, you end up with CO2 depletion which will kill your crops.

The greenhouse effect also implies that you are measuring the effects of ALL the greenhouse gasses, not just one because that doesn't really represent the "effect" of all greenhouse gasses, including water vapor, which is consistently excluded, as are clouds. If you choose to continue to support that position, I would be delighted to read some of the materials that led you to your conclusions.

I consistently read complaints in these threads about things like poverty and famine and a growing world population that we can't feed. CO2 increases crop growth and yields, and that is a fact, no need to dispute it because there are thousands of papers and examples of that which are undisputed. More people on the planet, means the need to grow more food to feed them, means we need CO2 to help increase the yields we get.

The planet being warmer hasn't killed life in the past, but being just a little colder has damn near wiped everything out to extinction....

The irony is borderline unbelievable, were it not for the fact that posts like this keep coming up.

~Namaste

edit on 29-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I didn't say, nor anyone else for that matter... that the Earth is a greenhouse. I didn't read your links, I'm on my phone. I can't provide links either atm, but I certainly didn't pull that statement out of thin air. You must still be mad lol.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I didn't say, nor anyone else for that matter... that the Earth is a greenhouse. I didn't read your links, I'm on my phone. I can't provide links either atm, but I certainly didn't pull that statement out of thin air. You must still be mad lol.


Mad, no.

Negatively impressed by people's demonstrated ignorance, arrogance and sheer stupidity, absolutely.



Unless you are on a phone that the 90's wants back, you should be able to view the links in my post, that's a lame excuse, sorry.

~Namaste



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I didn't say, nor anyone else for that matter... that the Earth is a greenhouse.


So why put a straw-man argument out there?

Trying to discredit me by asking a question of whether I refute an effect that has nothing do with the points of contention in the discussion... nice.

~Namaste



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

A lot of websites take forever to load on my phone, I don't even want a smart phone so I don't care that it's slow. I don't really care if you accept it or not seems you're quick to assume someone's being dishonest. Sure you're not still mad the last time you assumed such about me made you look like a fool? Anyway... regarding your next post, you get that the greenhouse effect isn't thought to make the earth a greenhouse right?

Namaste? lol



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I didn't say, nor anyone else for that matter... that the Earth is a greenhouse. I didn't read your links, I'm on my phone. I can't provide links either atm, but I certainly didn't pull that statement out of thin air. You must still be mad lol.


Mad, no.

Negatively impressed by people's demonstrated ignorance, arrogance and sheer stupidity, absolutely.



Unless you are on a phone that the 90's wants back, you should be able to view the links in my post, that's a lame excuse, sorry.

~Namaste


Lot's of people don't surf the web on phones. I don't. I use my phone for...wait for it...calling people. LOL That's what a phone is for, incase you didn't get the message. Sure I do several other things. I check the time and message people. I sometimes even use the camera and send my family pictures. Computers, tablets, things with bigger screens that you can actually see are used by many people to go to websites. Not everyone enjoys looking at minutes screens only a few inches in size.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I understand, Kali, funny that my husband is a phone internet junky, he uses his phone for everything, from watching movies news ect, while I love my laptop to search the internet and post, my husband love to use his I phone like a computer, so I understand that it takes time to find information, he even have a tablet but still uses the his phone.




posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

A lot of websites take forever to load on my phone, I don't even want a smart phone so I don't care that it's slow. I don't really care if you accept it or not seems you're quick to assume someone's being dishonest. Sure you're not still mad the last time you assumed such about me made you look like a fool? Anyway... regarding your next post, you get that the greenhouse effect isn't thought to make the earth a greenhouse right?

Namaste? lol


LOL... more strawman tactics from you... no surprise there...

First, you have a habit of concealing relevant information, so yes, I would call you dishonest at times, even if it's not intentional.

You fail to mention that I apologized to you for my assumption and retracted my statement, but it's nice to see you still hold grudges like a child and are would rather use that as a way to support your arguments instead of facts and data.

Second, you seem to have enough time to read my comments and post your own on ATS using your phone, so again, that's a lame excuse, especially when you posted an argument without sourcing your extremely bold claims that do sound like you pulled them out of thin air.

Third, what the hell relevance does my belief in the greenhouse effect have to do with the discussion of your claim of the Milankovich cycles being weaker than CO2 as the cause of historical changes? Completely off-topic and does not support anything you have claimed.

You can't talk about the effect of CO2 on the earth without talking about water vapor, methane and ozone as well and you conveniently ignore the points in other posts that I've raised to you such as the effects of water vapor, clouds, convection and the lack of all of the known sources and sinks of said greenhouse gasses. This alone, completely dismisses every argument you have because you can't discuss any of those, where they have more of an impact on climate than CO2 alone.

You are so myopically focused with your head down in the CO2 bubble, that you don't look up to see the clouds that are above your head and are a bigger cause for climate than CO2.

It's obvious that you have not presented credible arguments to the questions I posed to you or the fact that you were completely wrong about the Milankovich cycles, so instead, you are attempting to take focus off of your own inadequacy, and on to whether or not I refute an effect that isn't in question as part of our discussion.

You can't argue the facts, only your misunderstood belief of the science. You have yet to provide a single reference to a paper or source your claims, and then when YOU get called out on them, you have nothing credible to back up what you say, just strawman tactics to try to divert the attention away from your misunderstanding of the science.

I have posted tons of papers, facts, graphs, raw data... I actually have a science background and have worked for many years in modeling data.

If you don't have a science background, are you equipped to make an argument about processes or models or calculations that you don't fully understand? Or are you just parroting what you hear and read on blogs and websites and hoping your intelligence will fill in the gaps?

Have you used the Modtran program to model the effects of CO2 on temperature? I have.

Have you developed a GCM before? I have.

Have you ever worked hands-on with any of the data used in these discussions, and not just by plugging it in to Excel at home? I have.

And my degree is in the fields related to the above, so I'm in a position to help others understand things that are normally difficult to understand from looking at data alone.

Talking to you about climate when you clearly ignore concepts like convection, source and sink sequestration / emission, clouds, water vapor, the effect of cosmic rays on CO2 and cloud vapor, the logarithmic diminutive effect of CO2.... is rather pointless, especially when you purposely ignore the facts and research that is presented for no other reason than your own personal bias on the subject.

Like they say... "don't try to argue with idiots because they will drag you down and beat you with experience."

~Namaste - (because I don't have to like you to respect you, since you want to mock the meaning of its use.... classy)
edit on 29-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Yes! let us all allow a hip guy with glasses on Youtube tell us what to think instead of the guy with a suite on mainstream news...



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I didn't say, nor anyone else for that matter... that the Earth is a greenhouse. I didn't read your links, I'm on my phone. I can't provide links either atm, but I certainly didn't pull that statement out of thin air. You must still be mad lol.


Mad, no.

Negatively impressed by people's demonstrated ignorance, arrogance and sheer stupidity, absolutely.



Unless you are on a phone that the 90's wants back, you should be able to view the links in my post, that's a lame excuse, sorry.

~Namaste


Lot's of people don't surf the web on phones. I don't. I use my phone for...wait for it...calling people. LOL That's what a phone is for, incase you didn't get the message. Sure I do several other things. I check the time and message people. I sometimes even use the camera and send my family pictures. Computers, tablets, things with bigger screens that you can actually see are used by many people to go to websites. Not everyone enjoys looking at minutes screens only a few inches in size.



A lot of people don't surf the web on phones? Since when? You might be the exception, not the rule my friend...



- 91% of all people on earth have a mobile phone
- 56% of people own a smart phone
- 50% of mobile phone users, use mobile as their primary Internet source
- 80% of time on mobile is spent inside apps


Source

You all should really go out and take a look at data before you put forth your anecdotal versions of the truth.

Nice double-standard.

You'll say anything to prop each other up, even in the face of ignorance.

More than half of the US population has smart phones, which includes the ability to browse the internet.

Here you are defending a comment I made to someone else... when clearly, the size of their screen doesn't stop them from repeatedly posting on this thread and others on ATS, even if it does for you.

To sit there and try to claim that people don't surf the web with their smartphones, when one admits that they are using it to post their comments on this forum, is the height of hypocrisy.

~Namaste



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It's not anecdotal if it's true. It is true for me and many people I do business with. Your data above said 50% use phones as their primary internet source. What of those other 50%? It also said that most people are inside apps on their phones, not really surfing but doing specific things such as the weather channel app or an online game. not really the same as surfing the net or following links. I only said "A lot" of people. A lot is still hundreds of millions of people. Let's deny ignorance shall we?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TheRedneck

The ice cores cover the past 800K years. At no time in the past 800K years were CO2 levels higher than they are now.


The CO2 levels in the ice cores are irrelevant because they come after temperature rises. That is nothing more than a catchy headline and is meaningless if the CO2 changes were caused by temperature changes before man was present.


It is possible (and true) for CO2 changes to both be caused by external natural events, one of which includes temperature, AND CO2 to also be a mechanistic, radiative forcing, as a consequence of the laws of physics and extensive experimental evidence.

And of course, in the modern period, CO2 changes preceded observable climate responses, because the mechanism of the CO2 increase, namely mining and burning of fossil fuels which were entirely inert underground during the previous Ice Age cycles, is completely different.

However, the mechanistic influence of atmospheric CO2 on temperature through greenhouse effect is a consequence of physics which was the same throughout eternity.




CO2 has been higher in past (not hundred of millions of years ago), and every other form of life that depends on CO2 and oxygen thrived and lived just fine. To try and hit the panic button because "CO2 levels are higher today than 800K years"... why stop at 800K years?


Because human civilization supporting 9+ billion people never existed during that time. "Life" will do just fine, but that's not the problem at hand. No doubt there are still mosquitoes on Easter Island. But human civilization collapsed in misery after they blew through the physical capacity of the environment to support their civilization in wealth.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing
Yeah because the topic of the OP is definitely on whether many people can surf the web on smart phones or not... let's try to stay on track here people.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join