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.

 

Another Possible Antarctic shelf breaking off?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko



I think the science is still out because there is still a lot we don't know.

We don't know how exactly why gravity works. Care to step off this ledge? Maybe what we know isn't exactly right.

Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we don't know anything.


Observational evidence goes fully against AGW.

AGW assumes "out of control warming" can even occur.

When in fact co2 has beenuch higher many times, magically this time with extremely low levels though it is catastrophic.

Even though historically every time it was much higher, there was a huge abundance of life.

How do you parcel this?

Just saying, much higher co2 has never not even once been shown to cause this catastrophe that AGW predicts.

It seems much more likely a bunch of selfish mlionaires and billionaires prefer their beachfront properties to the prosperity of the masses.

Hence we little people are the that need to cut our carbon footprints, while they tool around the world in some of the most polluting transports around, while living in and consuming on a muchore colossal scale than any regular person could even dream of.




posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Unless you look at real climate data that makes the recent change look like a yawn.


No. Not really.
Perhaps you didn't notice that "+" mark, the one that says 2009.That's very large change since 1855 (when the ice core data ends) and that was a few years ago.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko



I think the science is still out because there is still a lot we don't know.

We don't know how exactly why gravity works. Care to step off this ledge? Maybe what we know isn't exactly right.

Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we don't know anything.


What ledge was that? Are you saying they do know everything about how gravity works? Enough to explain it all in every context?

I'm not saying we don't know some things, but I am wary about declaring definitively that man is the primary driver of all climactic heating taking place on this planet, that any such heating taking place is definitely and dangerously abnormal, and that our computer models are sufficiently refined to adequately forecast this by themselves.

I also dispute the 97% consensus which is based on flawed statistical analysis. The actual split is more like 50/50.

Much like there is no increased volcanic activity. Likewise, so many of the predictions made have been missed.

I'm not willing to write it off completely, but I am getting increasingly skeptical with every year that passes with no actual evidence that I can directly observe of changing climate. If anything, things here are cooler rather than hotter as the years go by.

I know, I know that's just weather, but that's another beef. If I could directly report that things are hotter, it would be climate, not weather, and of course, I am entering the season of climate.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Observational evidence goes fully against AGW.
No. It doesn't.



AGW assumes "out of control warming" can even occur.
AGW has nothing to do with "out of control warming." Warming does not have to be "out of control" to severely impact the planet.



When in fact co2 has beenuch higher many times, magically this time with extremely low levels though it is catastrophic.
Not in more than 400,000 years (at least) and not since the Sun has had its current output.



Even though historically every time it was much higher, there was a huge abundance of life.
When, historically, were global temperatures higher?



How do you parcel this?
You mean parse? Simple, what you have said is not true.



It seems much more likely a bunch of selfish mlionaires and billionaires prefer their beachfront properties to the prosperity of the masses.
Yes, those oil guys do like their money.





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



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not saying we don't know some things, but I am wary about declaring definitively that man is the primary driver of all climactic heating taking place on this planet, that any such heating taking place is definitely and dangerously abnormal, and that our computer models are sufficiently refined to adequately forecast this by themselves.
So, because the computer models of a very complex system (climate) are not 100% accurate it means the physics upon which they are based is wrong?



I also dispute the 97% consensus which is based on flawed statistical analysis. The actual split is more like 50/50.
Based on your statistical analysis?



Much like there is no increased volcanic activity. Likewise, so many of the predictions made have been missed.
I thought that volcanic activity leads to cooling because of that sulfur dioxide they emit. Do you have evidence that volcanic activity has increased substantially, because it would take a substantial increase to account for the increase in CO2. But you know, there is a difference between the CO2 released by volcanoes and the CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels, right?



If anything, things here are cooler rather than hotter as the years go by.
Congratulations, you're special. But the fact is there are far more all time high temperature records being set (nationally and global) than all time low temperature records.



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



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick

Observational evidence goes fully against AGW.
No. It doesn't.



AGW assumes "out of control warming" can even occur.
AGW has nothing to do with "out of control warming."



When in fact co2 has beenuch higher many times, magically this time with extremely low levels though it is catastrophic.
Not in more than 400,000 years (at least) and not since the Sun has had its current output.



Even though historically every time it was much higher, there was a huge abundance of life.
When, historically, were global temperatures higher?



How do you parcel this?
You mean parse? Simple, what you have said is not true.



It seems much more likely a bunch of selfish mlionaires and billionaires prefer their beachfront properties to the prosperity of the masses.
Yes, those oil guys do like their money.






Um...isn't the claim "out of control warming" is happening?

Um...yes that is the claim.

Shame on you phage.

That is bs on your part. That has been the nonstop message of AGW since it was known as "global warming".

Many times temps have beenuch higher.

Medieval warm period for example.

Come on phage.

That was a sorry attempt.

Everything I said is true.

All you did was deflect because your position is weak on these points.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not saying we don't know some things, but I am wary about declaring definitively that man is the primary driver of all climactic heating taking place on this planet, that any such heating taking place is definitely and dangerously abnormal, and that our computer models are sufficiently refined to adequately forecast this by themselves.
So, because the computer models of a very complex system (climate) are not 100% accurate it means the physics upon which they are based is wrong?



I also dispute the 97% consensus which is based on flawed statistical analysis. The actual split is more like 50/50.
Based on your statistical analysis?



Much like there is no increased volcanic activity. Likewise, so many of the predictions made have been missed.
I thought that volcanic activity leads to cooling because of that sulfur dioxide they emit. Do you have evidence that volcanic activity has increased substantially, because it would take a substantial increase to account for the increase in CO2. But you know, there is a difference between the CO2 released by volcanoes and the CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels, right?



If anything, things here are cooler rather than hotter as the years go by.
Congratulations, you're special. But the fact is there are far more all time high temperature records being set (nationally and global) than all time low temperature records.




Funny, I thought it obligatory for temps to rise as an ice age ends.........I guess they are supposed to stay the same?

Then how does an ice age end if the temps don't rise?



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Um...isn't the claim "out of control warming" is happening?

Um...yes that is the claim.
Maybe you need to define "out of control." The claim is that global temperatures are rising due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels. By controlling CO2 emissions the rate of warming could be controlled.



Medieval warm period for example.
Yes, in Europe it was warm for a while. Europe is a small part of the world. We don't really know what global temperatures were during that period.



Everything I said is true.
No.

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



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sad thing for your argument Phage is that all the previous more dramatic changes were not caused by CO2 from the industrial age so why is someone that is obviously as smart as yourself falling for the BS. Don't you realize that they are massaging data left right and centre to push hysteria for their carbon tax?



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




Sad thing for your argument Phage is that all the previous more dramatic changes were not caused by CO2 from the industrial age so why is someone that is obviously as smart as yourself falling for the BS.

Sad thing for your argument is that it has nothing to do with what is occurring now. The things that caused those changes in climate are not happening now. Tell me, if not increasing CO2 levels, what is causing the increase in temperatures?

I don't fall for BS. Too smart for it, I guess.

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



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not saying we don't know some things, but I am wary about declaring definitively that man is the primary driver of all climactic heating taking place on this planet, that any such heating taking place is definitely and dangerously abnormal, and that our computer models are sufficiently refined to adequately forecast this by themselves.
So, because the computer models of a very complex system (climate) are not 100% accurate it means the physics upon which they are based is wrong?



I also dispute the 97% consensus which is based on flawed statistical analysis. The actual split is more like 50/50.
Based on your statistical analysis?



Much like there is no increased volcanic activity. Likewise, so many of the predictions made have been missed.
I thought that volcanic activity leads to cooling because of that sulfur dioxide they emit. Do you have evidence that volcanic activity has increased substantially, because it would take a substantial increase to account for the increase in CO2. But you know, there is a difference between the CO2 released by volcanoes and the CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels, right?



If anything, things here are cooler rather than hotter as the years go by.
Congratulations, you're special. But the fact is there are far more all time high temperature records being set (nationally and global) than all time low temperature records.





No, not my analysisIf anyone in this house is doing stats, it's not me. That's what my husband does.

I'd pull the relevant quotes about the 97% consensus paper and the surveys of the AMS and Netherlands Environmental Agency which both showed something closer to a 50/50 split among scientists on the issue of what is causing any heating going on and how dangerous it may or may not be.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick

Um...isn't the claim "out of control warming" is happening?

Um...yes that is the claim.
Maybe you need to define "out of control." The claim is that global temperatures are rising due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels. By controlling CO2 emissions the rate of warming could be controlled.



Medieval warm period for example.
Yes, in Europe it was warmer.



Everything I said is true.
No.






OK "out of control"- as in would destroy life as we know it because it would become outrageously hot all over in a short, "century" is the most used term by the AGW crowd.

How many official sources you want?

I bet I can post over 50 in less than 5 mins of searching.

All the tippidy top of the AGW quoted sources.

Face it.

The truth is, they have been saying this bs, counter to reality or studied geological history.

The only thing humans have done to the atmosphere is take carbon that was once in it, and was then captured and stored underground, and released it back into the atmosphere.

Most of it is still trapped underground.

We have factors less than was present during the rein of the Dino's.

If anything, we aren't co2 ppm saturated, we are deficient.

All the greatest abundances of life coincided with much higher co2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

It is the main essential building block of life outside of water.

The more is free in the air, the more that can be used by life to flourish.

Hence prehistoric plants being so big and growing so fast.

Ours today are tiny and slow growing by comparison, because they are co2 starved.

Hence greenhouses that add co2 produce much larger faster growing plants than open air crops of the same species.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick

Um...isn't the claim "out of control warming" is happening?

Um...yes that is the claim.
Maybe you need to define "out of control." The claim is that global temperatures are rising due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels. By controlling CO2 emissions the rate of warming could be controlled.



Medieval warm period for example.
Yes, in Europe it was warm for a while. Europe is a small part of the world. We don't really know what global temperatures were during that period.



Everything I said is true.
No.


Well, if we really are that clueless about the past, then how do we know that what is going now is abnormal?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


No, not my analysisIf anyone in this house is doing stats, it's not me. That's what my husband does.

Yeah, I figured you'd bring that up. That's why I asked. Been through the argument about that study more than once.

Yes 66.4% had no mention of cause. There are a lot of papers which study a lot of aspects of warming. There are a lot of papers in which the root cause is not relevant to the topic of the paper. Most of them, in fact. There are a lot of scientific papers about the effects of gravity. Most of them don't talk about the causes.

But Cook is not the only one to conducted a study on the topic.
www.sciencemag.org...
tigger.uic.edu...
www.pnas.org...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend




Sad thing for your argument Phage is that all the previous more dramatic changes were not caused by CO2 from the industrial age so why is someone that is obviously as smart as yourself falling for the BS.

Sad thing for your argument is that it has nothing to do with what is occurring now. The things that caused those changes in climate are not happening now. Tell me, if not increasing CO2 levels, what is causing the increase in temperatures?

I don't fall for BS. Too smart for it, I guess.


So it has to be co2.

That is your starting position?

Because we wouldn't need to provide proof of what was if your position were truly scientifically neutral.

You assume it is the cause.

Even though it has never been the cause before.

Which is not very scientific at all.

All evidence we have besides comp models shows more co2 is great for life....all!!!!

There has never been a single time since life came to be geologically higher co2 was not beneficial.

It has always been higher in more proliferation of life than the present.

This is a fact.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

OK "out of control"- as in would destroy life as we know it because it would become outrageously hot all over in a short, "century" is the most used term by the AGW crowd.
Please provide any source which claims that life as we know it will be destroyed within a century.



How many official sources you want?
One would be good.




Hence greenhouses that add co2 produce much larger faster growing plants than open air crops of the same species.
Yes, but greenhouses are not in the open air, are they? How might increased temperatures and changes in rainfall affect crops? Not to mention what increased CO2 levels do to the oceans.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

All evidence we have besides comp models shows more co2 is great for life....all!!!!
Really?
www.pmel.noaa.gov...
Of course, that's just the oceans. Who cares about them. We don't live in the ocean. Right?




Well, if we really are that clueless about the past, then how do we know that what is going now is abnormal?

Because temperatures are rising and so are CO2 levels resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because the physics tell us that rising CO2 levels will cause temperatures to rise.

This is not new. Scientists have been talking about it since the middle of the last century. What is "new" is that we now have data. We have CO2. We have temperature data.

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



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko


No, not my analysisIf anyone in this house is doing stats, it's not me. That's what my husband does.

Yeah, I figured you'd bring that up. That's why I asked. Been through the argument about that study more than once.

Yes 66.4% had no mention of cause. There are a lot of papers which study a lot of aspects of warming. There are a lot of papers in which the root cause is not relevant to the topic of the paper. Most of them, in fact. There are a lot of scientific papers about the effects of gravity. Most of them don't talk about the causes.

But Cook is not the only one to conducted a study on the topic.
www.sciencemag.org...
tigger.uic.edu...
www.pnas.org...


You do make a strong argument about gravity.


Not one of us would argue if I drop this hammer and feather in a vacuum they word hit the ground at the same time.(at least I hope none would).

It is obvious, and obviously effects us and everything around us.

But never once has it been truly quantified and explained.

In fact, it is what stops us unifying field theory.

We think we have a good grasp on electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force.

But gravity eludes us at every corner exept it does warp space and time and it is a constant.

Other than that......good luck.

Sad state as it is, that is the current state.

We just basically know nothing about it truly besides observational dara.

It is, it does, it escapes our knowledge.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick



We just basically know nothing about it truly besides observational dara.

Yes. We know how things fall.
We also know what happens when radiative forcing is increased.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick

OK "out of control"- as in would destroy life as we know it because it would become outrageously hot all over in a short, "century" is the most used term by the AGW crowd.
Please provide any source which claims that life as we know it will be destroyed within a century.



How many official sources you want?
One would be good.




Hence greenhouses that add co2 produce much larger faster growing plants than open air crops of the same species.
Yes, but greenhouses are not in the open air, are they? How might increased temperatures and changes in rainfall affect crops? Not to mention what increased CO2 levels do to the oceans.


As far as oceans go, many times higher co2 didn't result in "acid" oceans many times in the past.

In fact, factors higher co2 concentrations were present when life exploded in the oceans.

Honestly, at work all I have is my phone which quoting individual points from is problematic at best on ATS mobile.

If you would word your responses in one context instead of several it would be much easier for thread clarity....but here goes.....

OK, my phones pos Os won't let me.....(the resolution while I fail is high though.....EFF tech right in its......)

Ok honestly the amount of sources were .....staggering.

What source do you want, I have thousands, as in tens of?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join