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.

 

Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

page: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Oh good, we're dealing with hypothetical scenarios rather than reality now, that's great.

We could all die in an asteroid strike tomorrow and nothing we might have done to mitigate climate change will have mattered, therefore let's ignore it!




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

Uh, no it is complicated like rocket science and that is why the forecasts are very hard to pinpoint to the level of a weekly forecast. I work with forecasters, they know.

CO2 reradiates bands of infrared radiation - this is a fact.
Humans are emitting vast quantities of CO2 - this is a fact.
The reradiation of infrared radiation will warm things - this is a fact.

Which part is complicated?

edit on 10Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:04:56 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

edit on 13-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
You cant show me data where the temperature went up after CO2 climbs is the historical fact. The models failed and they still bring them out for those who don't work in the field of Science to be duped, so the money can be more easily CONfiscatED.

Uh, pretty much everyone agrees that it has warmed since 1850... and CO2 is much higher now...

Do you deny basic physics or do you simply think the Earth's atmosphere is not beholden to physics?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman
You cant show me data where the temperature went up after CO2 climbs is the historical fact. The models failed and they still bring them out for those who don't work in the field of Science to be duped, so the money can be more easily CONfiscatED.

Uh, pretty much everyone agrees that it has warmed since 1850... and CO2 is much higher now...

Do you deny basic physics or do you simply think the Earth's atmosphere is not beholden to physics?



Um, it has since the little Ice age and will some more, naturally. Earth is warming from an ice age. Still was warmer during Roman times. I do not deny Physics, but apparently you guys do.
edit on 13-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
Um, it has since the little Ice age and will some more, naturally. Earth is warming from an ice age. Still was warmer during Roman times.

To your underlying point, let me tell you a little secret.

Ice accumulates on glaciers by snowfall. Earth does not get cold enough to freeze CO2. CO2 remains a gas and can move. As CO2 is not as dense as ice, it tends to migrate upwards. What do you expect this might do to ice core dating?

Once upon a time, global warming deniers - who were more scientifically minded than yourself - pointed out that there would be discrepancies between where CO2 is found in an ice core. That is, until the more ideologically motivated critics realized that they could point to where CO2 was found and say it was found after warming occurred.

Prove that the RWP was warmer than today.
If you do not accept the fact that CO2 reradiates infrared radiation, you are denying rather basic physics.
edit on 10Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:20:14 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

From a Forbes article on the debate

"Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive."


As a professional Environmental Scientist, I advise you that this is the truth as most of us see it. We in this business are very concerned about our reputation being ruined by these money grabbing clowns.This will result in a huge reaction to scientist's in general and already has. I don't want to be included when the little people have had enough and come looking for us to extract revenge.
edit on 13-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere!
by H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan, principia-scientific.org...

socioecohistory.wordpress.com... de-is-a-coolant/



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Justoneman

From a Forbes article on the debate

"Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive."


As a professional Environmental Scientist, I advise you that this is the truth as most of us see it. We in this business are very concerned about our reputation being ruined by these money grabbing clowns.This will result in a huge reaction to scientist's in general and already has. I don't want to be included when the little people have had enough and come looking for us to extract revenge.

Interesting that you are so poorly able to express how I am wrong given that you are "a professional Environmental Scientist."

You are fooling nobody. The fact that you point to a Forbes article written by none other than AGW denier Mark Hendrickson (who isn't exactly a scientist: "I write about economics, politics, and human-interest stories") underscores the point. He's an ideologically motivated economist.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman
Um, it has since the little Ice age and will some more, naturally. Earth is warming from an ice age. Still was warmer during Roman times.

To your underlying point, let me tell you a little secret.

Ice accumulates on glaciers by snowfall. Earth does not get cold enough to freeze CO2. CO2 remains a gas and can move. As CO2 is not as dense as ice, it tends to migrate upwards. What do you expect this might do to ice core dating?

Once upon a time, global warming deniers - who were more scientifically minded than yourself - pointed out that there would be discrepancies between where CO2 is found in an ice core. That is, until the more ideologically motivated critics realized that they could point to where CO2 was found and say it was found after warming occurred.

Prove that the RWP was warmer than today.
If you do not accept the fact that CO2 reradiates infrared radiation, you are denying rather basic physics.




Lets discuss academic fraud to keep contradictory evidence back from you then to help you understand where the data is going and how to follow the scientific process you seem to think you are keen on already. Here is evidence of such.

americanfreepress.net...


edit on 13-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere!
by H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan, principia-scientific.org...

socioecohistory.wordpress.com... de-is-a-coolant/

Hahahahaha.

We're off into the deep end of lunacy now. Might want to see what WUWT says about that first one.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman
Um, it has since the little Ice age and will some more, naturally. Earth is warming from an ice age. Still was warmer during Roman times.

To your underlying point, let me tell you a little secret.

Ice accumulates on glaciers by snowfall. Earth does not get cold enough to freeze CO2. CO2 remains a gas and can move. As CO2 is not as dense as ice, it tends to migrate upwards. What do you expect this might do to ice core dating?

Once upon a time, global warming deniers - who were more scientifically minded than yourself - pointed out that there would be discrepancies between where CO2 is found in an ice core. That is, until the more ideologically motivated critics realized that they could point to where CO2 was found and say it was found after warming occurred.

Prove that the RWP was warmer than today.
If you do not accept the fact that CO2 reradiates infrared radiation, you are denying rather basic physics.




Lets discuss academic fraud to keep contradictory evidence back from you then to help you understand where the data is going and how to follow the scientific process you seem to think you are keen on already. Here is evidence of such.

americanfreepress.net...


No, let's instead discuss your fraud, claiming to be an authority on the subject matter, while utilizing the most ridiculous sources imaginable.

Why do you feel the need to lie about your credentials? Are your opinions so poorly founded that you must inflate your standing such that they appear to have merit?

If you deny that CO2 reradiates infrared radiation, you deny science. You would be denying your very discipline if you were actually an "Environmental Scientist." What a waste of time.
edit on 10Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:35:37 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere!
by H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan, principia-scientific.org...

socioecohistory.wordpress.com... de-is-a-coolant/

Hahahahaha.

We're off into the deep end of lunacy now. Might want to see what WUWT says about that first one.


Well, you do appear to be in that zone you are thinking about for me. I can only bring you the facts as I see them from a professional standpoint. It is lunacy to deny that in the field of Science there has been lots of chances for you to hear about the qualified dissenters to this hoax you have fallen for hook line and sinker.
edit on 13-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere!
by H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan, principia-scientific.org...

socioecohistory.wordpress.com... de-is-a-coolant/

Hahahahaha.

We're off into the deep end of lunacy now. Might want to see what WUWT says about that first one.


Well, you do appear to be in that zone you are thinking about for me. I can only bring you the facts as I see them from a professional standpoint. It is lunacy to deny that in the field of Science there has been lots of chances for you to hear about the qualified dissenters to this hoax you have fallen for hook line and sinker.

I suppose I'll quote this, just in cause you edit this post once you see mine.

You are fooling nobody. (e: I guess I'm wrong here... you're fooling whoever is starring your posts)
edit on 10Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:58:21 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
i will throw my opinion in :

anthropomorphic climate changes are dawrfed by historic natural climate changes

chew on that


Yes, that's absolutely correct.

However, no one is claiming that anthropomorphic climate change is far more severe than any natural one, but rather, that Anthropomorphic climate change is actually occurring, and we can prevent it.


That is a problem, the climate change could VERY WELL BE natural, it seems your minds are UTTERLY made up.

I find that very UNSCIENTIFIC, and problematic, why is it that SCIENTISTS must only focus on the ITS US HUMANS that are doing everything.

That could prove disastrous!


Explain how keeping the environment clean/cleaning up the environment and or going green could prove disastrous?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct


You do not seem to understand.

How does believing unproven lies going to motivate anyone to "clean up" or "go green".

And for that matter, having scientists and the populace under ridiculous pressure to prove a tiny percentage of climate change could be caused by us, in all reality appears to be taking away from true progress.

INHIBITING PROGRESS.

Science looks like a total joke when it gets on tangents like this and has no real questioning of the big picture.

You lot are a confusing mix of hippy, progressive, regressive, and recycling emotions, not thought fully through.

Stop wasting time on changing peoples minds and realize that you are as bad as ANY of the 2012'ers, in spirit, in soul, and in FACT.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Alien Abduct


You do not seem to understand.

How does believing unproven lies going to motivate anyone to "clean up" or "go green".

And for that matter, having scientists and the populace under ridiculous pressure to prove a tiny percentage of climate change could be caused by us, in all reality appears to be taking away from true progress.

INHIBITING PROGRESS.

Science looks like a total joke when it gets on tangents like this and has no real questioning of the big picture.

You lot are a confusing mix of hippy, progressive, regressive, and recycling emotions, not thought fully through.

Stop wasting time on changing peoples minds and realize that you are as bad as ANY of the 2012'ers, in spirit, in soul, and in FACT.


“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.


Progress is being impeded so that the money theft can continue. Companies were formed, money taken, leaders of the company took huge bonuses and closed the plants. The common man is taught falsely to think "hey, it is not profitable" when it is. If the honest people could get a break from these thieves, mans plight would improve immensely. Using oil when we could drive that H2 Car that cracks water using solar panels that is being driven by a University, now for over 20 years as of this posting, is a crime against humanity. And it is a clue to see the actions of those profiting illegally from this scam of so called man made climate change.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
i will throw my opinion in :

anthropomorphic climate changes are dawrfed by historic natural climate changes

chew on that


Yes, that's absolutely correct.

However, no one is claiming that anthropomorphic climate change is far more severe than any natural one, but rather, that Anthropomorphic climate change is actually occurring, and we can prevent it.


That is a problem, the climate change could VERY WELL BE natural, it seems your minds are UTTERLY made up.

I find that very UNSCIENTIFIC, and problematic, why is it that SCIENTISTS must only focus on the ITS US HUMANS that are doing everything.

That could prove disastrous!


Explain how keeping the environment clean/cleaning up the environment and or going green could prove disastrous?


How about it will be disastrous when we shut down industry that provides jobs so that there is food on peoples table, has our economy moving and keeps people from rioting in the streets from the threat of starvation or the lost hope for a decent life that an income provides, for one? I make my living monitoring pollution and there is a definite balance, but too much regulation makes the jobs go to places with little or no regs at all. Which, that has to be worse for the environment than balancing the problem with logic and reason.
edit on 13-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Why are you not posting things from peer reviewed sources?
All you have done is make an appeal to authority claiming to be an enviormental scientist and posting stuff from Forbes and off the wall blog posts.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Justoneman

Why are you not posting things from peer reviewed sources?
All you have done is make an appeal to authority claiming to be an enviormental scientist and posting stuff from Forbes and off the wall blog posts.


What good would it do? If you check my posts on ATS you will see a steady stream of said work. You won't listen. But in case i am wrong about you here is a way to discern the truth.

www.youtube.com...

www.aninconsistenttruth.com...

edit on 13-2-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join