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.

 

Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change

page: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I haven't read all of the posts here but regardless of your point of view, the Man-made Global Warming is here to stay! My position is not a scientific or a political one but an economical one. There is so many budding businesses coming out of this issue we are stuck with it.

There are companies that contract with manufacturing and energy producing companies to manage their environmental interests. This like insurance to keep the EPA/government out of their daily operations. Electric car, windmill, and solar panel manufactures all have a vested interest. They all have lobbyists to protect their interests with the government.

Former politicians have even tried to exploit this new industry by selling "carbon credits" to businesses who uses fossil fuels.

None of these efforts/eco-businesses do anything to clean or mitigate pollution... just enrich themselves. They earn their living by exploiting this debate! Just my two cents.




posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

You first claim those who disagree with AGW are ignorant, and then imply that those who agree with AGW are laymen who are easily misled and don't need to understand the science behind climate change...

I just...wow... just don't have words anymore...


jrod is correct.

The scientific evidence now is comprehensive and strong. The scientific evidence for alternative explanations excluding major human influence is negligible. Repeated studies show how observed data in the modern period cannot be explained without including as a primary influence, the increases in greenhouse gasses added by humans.

I have no desire for this to be true, but it is. I have no desire for greenhouse taxes and major economic changes, but they are imperative. I gain nothing from this other than the hope that my descendants won't curse all of us. In the future, the unconstrained burning of fossil fuels will be regarded as abominable as we see slavery today: clearly and deeply evil and yet a daily part of people's living and a major economic force.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: JameSimon
Above top secret logic:

1 million people agree: conspiracy
1 person disagrees: Must be telling the truth


Top physicists working on the problem professionally and publishing and in contact with experimental data and simulation codes: conspiracy

Top physicist not working on the problem professionally: must be telling the truth

By the way Freeman Dyson is not an insane idiotic denialist like so many others---he just thinks that the climate sensitivity is likely to be lower than mainstream estimates and the consequences less severe than mainstream estimates. He accepts the physical reality of increased greenhouse gases and the proven mechanism and quantity of radiative forcing.

Once you get into estimating the particular climate sensitivity and consequences, the problem becomes far more complex and technical and not something you can do in a 'back of the envelope' calculation beyond crude global averages. And on this, the specialists have the better results.

An analogy Professor Dyson would understand: with a simple model and hand calculations, you can get some rough estimates of effects in particle physics. However, if you want to get high-quality calibrated quantitative estimates of reaction rates and particle distributions and correlations, you need to do a full-on, many order, complex simulation of everything in the Standard Model. That requires deep expertise and long-standing efforts improving the very detailed software codes---professional life's work for specialists. This is the stuff that people spend years at CERN working on---huge computer codes developed and validated over decades---used to get cross sections and spectra & predictions good enough to compare against experimental data.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Nope, you pretty much are still on the wrong track here... Though, I imagine it is probably intentional, because if you were to actually attempt to understand the parallel that I'm trying to make you wouldn't be able to be so smug about your position.


There is no parallel at all. First, you, among some others always claim all those scientists who disagree with AGW are paid by oil, which is wrong. Second, even those that were paid for "research" it doesn't mean they were paid to lie. You have to PROVE their argument is wrong, which you and the rest of the AGW camp NEVER DO.

This is what you don't understand... There are people who work for oil companies yet they believe in AGW, even engineers and biologists. Yet there are others that don't believe in AGW. It is not because "big oil is paying them all to lie"...

To prove your point you have to demonstrate that their argument and evidence is wrong... But the tactic used by those AGW followers like yourself is to simply say "they are all paid by big oil". Not only that, you among all other AGW proponents lump every scientist and non-scientist as "must be a paid shill of oil companies". You never argue the actual evidence those scientists present.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Your hypothesis rests on the claim that Climategate is real. It wasn't. You should really attempt to understand that.


Climategate was real... The same as the lies being pushed by many pro-AGW scientists to simply push governments to accept their agendas.

Or what about the claim that all the melting of glaciers are being caused by global warming, when that's not true?...


Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
...
The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet's stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

The cause of the variable distribution of heat beneath the glacier is thought to be the movement of magma and associated volcanic activity arising from the rifting of the Earth's crust beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
...
The findings of lead author Dusty Schroeder and his colleagues show that the glacier sits on something more like a multi-burner stovetop with burners putting out heat at different levels at different locations.
...
The collapse of the Thwaites Glacier would cause an increase of global sea level of between 1 and 2 meters, with the potential for more than twice that from the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
...
According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth's continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter.
...

news.utexas.edu...

Or research such as this one.




Abstract
The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10??C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost. A search for gas venting on the Arctic seafloor focused on pingo-like-features (PLFs) on the Beaufort Sea Shelf because they may be a direct consequence of gas hydrate decomposition at depth. Vibracores collected from eight PLFs had systematically elevated methane concentrations. ROV observations revealed streams of methane-rich gas bubbles coming from the crests of PLFs. We offer a scenario of how PLFs may be growing offshore as a result of gas pressure associated with gas hydrate decomposition. Copyright 2007 by the American Geophysical Union.

pubs.er.usgs.gov...

Although that research is about the origin of pingo-like features on the Beaufort Sea shelf and their possible relationship to decomposing methane gas hydrates, it is still pointing out that at least part of our oceans are undergoing warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. there have been fluctuations, but to this day it is still warming, and we have recently also found out that underwater volcanoes are also warming the oceans and melting glaciers.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol, the comparison of salaries of scientists in favor of AGW are FAR less than the salaries of the ones paid by oil companies. That is a fact you can't argue around. Oh yea. Look at this.


Really?... Recently another member posted a thread about one of the main proponents of AGW who has been receiving quite a lot of money, and even members of his family, for example one of his children were also receiving money. Shukla received $500,000 in federal grants in 2014 alone. Plus the adding his salary from George Mason University was $250,000, yielding a total of $750,000 in 2014 alone. He also received an additional 100,000 to use for charity.

climateaudit.org...

www.ipcc.ch...


originally posted by: Krazysh0t

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC. The work of the IPCC is guided by a set of principles and procedures.


Voluntary? None of them are paid? WHAAAAAT!


WOW... how easily do you forget the fact that the claim that there were "thousands of scientists experts in climate change in the IPCC" is a lie...


...
Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as2,500 of the worlds leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.
...


The above can be found at the end of page 10 and beginning of page 11. Although on overall it is a good read.
www.probeinternational.org...

There is also the fact that some of the real climate change experts that have participated in the IPCC have even told the public how the IPCC has politicized Climate Change.

Will continue the discussion below.

edit on 21-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Or what about the fact that several of the IPCC scientists have come forward explaining that Climate Change is being politicized?


This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

He was/is not the only one...

In fact, several REAL EXPERTS, many who participated in the IPCC reports have made similar accusations.


...
46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC
1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."

8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

17. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."

18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful."

19. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

20. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
...

undeceivingourselves.org...

Heck, there have been IPCC experts who have come forward to state the majority of the "claimed 2,500 experts" were not experts at all in any field related to Climate Change. The majority were simply "policymakers" who work for their governments to try to use Climate Change to further their country's political and economic agendas...

The following is part of the testimony of another IPCC scientist, Paul Reiter, who said the following about the experts in his field of study which was based on the propagation of diseases through mosquitoes, and the impacts of human health if the climate were to warm.


Memorandum by Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris

THE IPCC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION. EXAMPLE: IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
...
12. The scientific literature on mosquito-borne diseases is voluminous, yet the text references in the chapter were restricted to a handful of articles, many of them relatively obscure, and nearly all suggesting an increase in prevalence of disease in a warmer climate. The paucity of information was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
...

www.publications.parliament.uk...



edit on 21-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

edit on 21-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The specialists have better results?... Which specialists are you talking about?... The claim that GCMs are right when the majority of them have been seriously wrong and the very few that have been right could have reached those predictions based simply on chance?...



www.drroyspencer.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
This is what the majority of AGW proponents fail to understand. Beside the fact that GCMs are wrong, despite the fact that several scientists including IPCC scientists to this day argue that there is no such consensus. Despite the fact that evidence has been found time and again that many scientists proponents of the AGW claim have been caught lying, deleting raw temperature data, and doing anything to simply push their "political and economic agendas"; there is also the fact that the real polluters are not being held accountable for their actions.

For crying out loud, to this day we still don't know what repercussions the Deepwater oil spill and release of corexit will have on life in the Pacific ocean, yet BP cannot be blamed anymore for not doing more to stop this.

Or what about the plume of radiation that keeps being released by Japan from the Fukushima plant? what have the governments of the world done to stop this?

When you blame CO2 for a problem that it is simply not causing, you are not blaming oil companies. You are blaming everything that emits CO2. Any of you understands what that means? It means that under the "corporate global government" that will be implemented, said government can decide how many children you can, or can't have, since they also emit CO2 and will need energy produced by products that will emit CO2. This government can tell people how many pets, if any they can have. It will tell you what you can, and can't eat. It will tell you what jobs you should have "for the betterment of the planet". It will tell you how you should live, what children should be taught, etc. In general such a government blaming CO2 will be able to control every aspect of people's lives meanwhile the mega rich will continue to be in power.


Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 5, 2012

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) are focusing on population control through their Global Health Development Programs. By using citizens in under-developed nations, like Africa and India, was Guinea pigs for their research and development for “new interventions such as vaccines, drugs and diagnostics”, these globalists hope to ensure their family planning schemes are effective.

Melinda Gates has made family planning and the population control agenda her personal mission . She justifies her cause by claiming that 100,000 women die in child birth from unintended pregnancies. Although this statistic has no scientific basis, since it sounds good and mainstream media do not check facts, it has helped the BMGF team up with the British government to raise more than $4 billion to fun depopulation programs under the guise of bringing contraceptives to under-developed nations.

The BMGF assert that by 2050 “the global population is expected to grow to over 9 billion people” and this is unacceptable to them. By applying pressure to social programs and resources, the BMGF want to use family planning as an investment for all national governments globally.

Strategies to accomplish their goals include:
Using financial influence to force governments and policymakers to implement their family planning schemes
Empower NGOs who promote family planning propaganda
Coerce the integration of family planning into all
humanitarian efforts by using funds from the UN Global Fund
Pour money into efforts that further family planning through national policy controls that adhere to the UN
s Millennium Development Goals

BMGF has partnered with drug corporations like Shanghai Dahua Pharmaceuticals in China to develop implantable fertility controls that will be used in over 20 developing countries to curb population growth.


The injectable Depo-Provera is being sold to under-developed nations and being administered by healthcare workers and nonmedical providers, or by the women themselves. Policy and training systems are underway to ensure these drugs are utilized in areas like the sub-Saharan Africa. By using these areas as testing grounds for new fertility drugs, as well as well as forcible sterilization schemes, the BMGF are focusing on preventative situations over dealing with abortable pregnancies which become complicated.
...

occupycorporatism.com...

When you start sequestering CO2, the methods of sequestration cannot discern the difference between CO2 that was released by humans and natural CO2. When you start sequestering CO2, there is no switch that can stop it at "the supposed right level". Not to mention that it is a fact that most plants produce more harvests, and grow bigger with higher levels of CO2 than at present. If the levels of CO2 are lowered by sequestration methods, we could stump the growth of all plant life. Harvests will decrease, all plants will need to use more water with less atmospheric CO2, which will leave humans and animals with less water.

Interactive Effects of CO2 and Salinity Stress on Plant Growth -- Summary

EFFECT OF ELEVATED ATMOSPHERE CO2 CONCENTRATION ON COTTONWOOD TREE GROWTH AND SOIL RESPIRATORY ACTIVITY



...
We agree that social norms are important, but social norms and values shift in complicated and often unexpected
ways (Ehrlich and Levin 2005) and respond to myriad forces at both lower and higher levels of social organization
(Ostrom et al. 2002). If no tipping point is reached, a minority of the population potentially shoulders the burdens of proenvironment behavior; moreover, their efforts alone are unlikely to have a sufficient impact on the types of emerging environmental challenges that the world faces. Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems.
Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion alone are insufficient.

Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant behavior modification (Carlson 2001, House of Lords 2011).
Policies apply to everyone in a particular jurisdiction and, as a result, ensure that the burdens of proenvironment behavior are widely shared, which increases the probability of measurable positive outcomes.

...

www.aibs.org...

If we really want real polluters to pay and be more responsible, we have to concentrate on the real toxic chemicals, and gases being released, and not on CO2. We are in a planet where all life is carbon based. We need CO2, and this attempt to blame CO2 is simply one of the stratagems of the eugenicist elites to implement population control and depopulation.


edit on 21-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

edit on 21-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.

edit on 21-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Roy Spencer is not a credible source of information. I'm pretty sure he's bankrolled by the Heartland Institute...


You do not seem to get the concept if balance with the climate and NO ONE is suggesting CO2 is not vital and our respirations need to be taxed. That is you being a drama queen and pulling arguments from your hindside.

What we are observing us a sharp increase if CO2 levels as direct result from our addiction to fossil fuels. This has very smart people who study this stuff concerned because it is changing the balance of our atmosphere's chemistry.

PS,

The BP spill was in the Gulf of Mexico
edit on 22-10-2015 by jrod because: aa



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




All that matters it the objective evidence for or against the hypothesis/theory.

Ahh there is the problem. It is just a theory yet it is treated as if it is a absolute. Too much action to be taken on just a theory. Just a matter of time before we get some data that was either ignored or not even considered. Once we start actions trying to combat this "theory" they will not be able to just be stopped. Since the lingo gets changed to meet the results. I.E. global warming vs climate change is it a surprise if there are people who are doubting the actual reasoning and results?



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: hangedman13


It is just a theory yet it is treated as if it is a absolute.


This sentence doesn't make any sense. AGW is treated the same as any other theory. A theory is the HIGHEST level of accuracy a scientific idea can achieve. Though no one treats it as absolute. That is a fallacy.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

Roy Spencer is not a credible source of information. I'm pretty sure he's bankrolled by the Heartland Institute...


Once again wrong... Roy Spencer is a scientist who has, and is studying climate change.


Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist,[1] Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.[2][3] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.[2][3]

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award
...

en.wikipedia.org...

You can't exclude what a scientist has to say unless you can prove his theories are wrong... Do you understand that?



originally posted by: jrod
You do not seem to get the concept if balance with the climate and NO ONE is suggesting CO2 is not vital and our respirations need to be taxed. That is you being a drama queen and pulling arguments from your hindside.


What "balance with the climate"?... The climate is always changing, always in constant flux. Which is why there are fluctuations and periods of warming and cooling. This "climate balance" claim has been made up by the AGW camp who "pulled it out of their hindside"...

As for your claim that "no one wants to tax our respiration"; that isn't exactly what i was mentioning. What I asserted is that very powerful people are arguing that mankind itself is responsible and should be addressed as part of the problem...


(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit


Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
...


You can watch this yourself at:
www.naturalnews.tv...

Notice how Bill Gates includes people as part of the tracking of CO2... Meaning that the elites like Gates do think mankind itself is a significant factor in lowering CO2 emissions... Notice that he says "one of those numbers has to lower to almost 0"... And one of those numbers are people.

Also, take note that the other factors in Bill Gates "equation to track CO2 levels" includes services per person, energy per service, and CO2 per energy unit. They all have to do with the first one which is people.



originally posted by: jrod
What we are observing us a sharp increase if CO2 levels as direct result from our addiction to fossil fuels. This has very smart people who study this stuff concerned because it is changing the balance of our atmosphere's chemistry.


First, once again you seem not to understand that even mankind emissions are not that big, and the natural emissions are much more than mankind could ever emit. You again fail to understand that in the "Troposphere" water vapor accounts for around 97% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 accounts for around 5%.

Over the past 100 years temperatures have increased by around 0.85C.

Water vapor has been responsible for 97% of that temperature increase which equals 0.8245C. That's from water vapor.
CO2 accounts for around 5% of 0.85C which is 0.0425C.

So to recap.

Water Vapor increased temperatures by around 0.8245C

CO2 increase temperatures by around 0.0425C

But, mankind did not release all the CO2 that exists in the atmosphere. Of that insignificant temperature of 0.0425C Mankind only contributed a small portion.

You still are not understanding that the increase in CO2 isn't just because of mankind. Natural sources also change the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and the Earth has been warming naturally since the early 1600s.

That's without mentioning that even the 0.0425C is an insignificant temperature. You would not notice a change in temperature from 33C to 33.0425C.


originally posted by: jrod
PS,

The BP spill was in the Gulf of Mexico


That's the only thing you got right. Yes I did make that mistake, but it was because I was writing about both events the Deepwater Horizon and the Fukushima disaster.


edit on 22-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This sentence doesn't make any sense. AGW is treated the same as any other theory. A theory is the HIGHEST level of accuracy a scientific idea can achieve. Though no one treats it as absolute. That is a fallacy.


Wrong, not all theories are the "highest level of accuracy a scientific idea can achieve". There have been, and there are theories that were/are wrong. The claim that mankind is the cause of the ongoing climate change is one of those theories that is wrong.



When a "theory" is 95% wrong, and only 5% is right, the 5% right part of the theory could have been achieved simply by chance. The "theory" is still wrong since 95% of it is wrong.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Look at quantitative data here:

data.giss.nasa.gov...

1979-1983 average (which if you notice is a local particularly high cherry-picking): .24

2014: .75.

Difference = 0.51. That puts it well in the bulk of the fuzz.

2015 is going to blow 2014 away by a huge amount.

If you take the 10 year average previous to 1983 as the baseline (before the AGW signal is clearly obvious), you get a baseline of .127, and a difference of .623.




First, once again you seem not to understand that even mankind emissions are not that big, and the natural emissions are much more than mankind could ever emit.


Not for CO2. 280ppm pre-fossil fuels, now 400ppm and increasing rapidly. fossil fuel emissions over a few years are larger than the effect from the yearly cycle of the entire planetary biosphere. That's huge!!



You again fail to understand that in the "Troposphere" water vapor accounts for around 97% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 accounts for around 5%.


First those numbers aren't right. Learn some science here: www.realclimate.org...

Second, you also misunderstand the physics of the water vapor. It has a equilibrium timescale of 2 weeks about, because of the continual interchange with the oceans. Get rid of all water in the atmosphere by magic, and it will be back soon enough. Saturate the atmosphere with water, and it will go back to its weather equilibrium.

mustelid.blogspot.com...

Obviously man has no direct influence on the amount of water in the atmosphere. Man could make as much humid air from factories as it could, and it would made no difference climatically. This is not the case with CO2, and other greenhouse gases.

If there is more water vapor in the atmosphere it's because climate changed. It's important in computing climate sensitivity but it doesn't drive climate change, it responds to climate change and participates as a co-conspirator.

CO2 has a timescale of hundreds to thousands of years.

If CO2 had a cycle time naturally like water vapor, then we wouldn't see any signal in increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, until the late 1950's, some scientists believed that CO2 naturally would be in tight equilibrium with the oceans, but Roger Revelle showed some chemical and physical reasons why that wasn't the case and how CO2 could increase substantially. And then the observational program started (Charles Keeling) and proved him right.

What matters is the climate response to the CO2 and other greenhouse gases humans are emitting, and this will be significant. The attribution of the baseline greenhouse effect is mostly irrelevant---what matters is the changes from people and the effect.


edit on 23-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Name me the last theory that was proved wrong. Give me the year it happened. And don't say Climate Change.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Are we still back to this?... What about the fact that it has been shown NASA, among some others, has been manipulating temperature data?



NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

Press Release From: KUSI-TV
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010

...
In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at icecap.us...

The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.
...

www.spaceref.com...

I actually went through great length to show in the forums how part of this data manipulation has been done. In specific showing how the data had been manipulated in south American temperature stations. For example the temperature data from Puerto Casado.

(still can't get ATS search engine to work, so linking to other websites showing this data manipulation.)

Climate gate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

Or what about.


Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

Written by John O'Sullivan on 19 Jan 2014

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."
...

www.principia-scientific.org...

Your claim that "CO2 has a timescale of hundreds to thousands of years" is false.

Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of 5 years in Earth's atmosphere.

Research papers have found a residence time of atmospheric CO2 from 5.4 years to 30.5 years.


Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere

Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy

The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.


thermosymposium.nist.gov...

But keep on making false claims.




edit on 25-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Name me the last theory that was proved wrong. Give me the year it happened. And don't say Climate Change.


You still can't understand the difference between "Climate Change" and "Anthropogenic Global Warming" can you?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is one...
A few more...
Maybe more...

Oh Hell...here is Google

Read what I said again VERY carefully. I didn't ask for ANY theories that were proven wrong. I asked for the last one.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are so silly.

I'm right about this, mbkennel is right but you try to tell this board we don't understand the science.

You just don't give up, despite the reality that your claims have been shot down by the actual science.

I actually threw you a bone with CO2's residence time, something months ago you were clueless about. Because most CO2 bounces from the ocean to the atmosphere it has a deceptively short RT. When one accounts for the ocean interaction we find that CO2 stays around for a very long time.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

You are so silly.


That's actually funny coming from you.


originally posted by: jrod
I'm right about this, mbkennel is right but you try to tell this board we don't understand the science.


Wrong... Show evidence that CO2 residence time lasts for "hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere"... Not even the AGW scientists you all idolize would agree with you.

SHOW EVIDENCE, don't just make claims...


originally posted by: jrod
You just don't give up, despite the reality that your claims have been shot down by the actual science.

I actually threw you a bone with CO2's residence time, something months ago you were clueless about. Because most CO2 bounces from the ocean to the atmosphere it has a deceptively short RT. When one accounts for the ocean interaction we find that CO2 stays around for a very long time.



You are insane... seriously... CO2 "bounces off from the ocean to the atmosphere"?...

You are confused with the carbon cycle and trying to claim this is what causes carbon, or in this case CO2 to remain for "hundreds to thousands of years" in the atmosphere?...

It's a cycle... It's not a bounce... Water Vapor has a similar cycle, so according to your own logic, which is flawed, water vapor also "bounces off from the ocean to the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years"...

BTW, i wasn't clueless about this subject months ago... But you are certainly clueless about it to this day.

You are so clueless you don't even notice it. You are beyond help...


edit on 28-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join