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.

 

Human carbon release rate is unprecedented in the past 66 million years of Earth's history

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cygnis
Government funded research.. A.K.A "Here's some money to make a report with "data" that supports the demanded narrative".


Surely not!


Funding for this research was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the European Union.
Oh. I was wrong.




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Oh please, I understood it fine. You are making your usual church of climate 'point' and trying to equate the science to religious scripture. I don't think you understand how off base that is and how different those two things are.

I also didn't say that you don't care, just said this "since this can happen we shouldn't worry about anything" is stupid. Yes a super volcano can go off, but that doesn't change anything about the changing of the climate. So save the ad homs and let's talk about that.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Running around screaming 'we're all gonna die someday' does nothing.


Says the guy going on and on about yellowstone and it killing us?

Still nothing on backing up your claims of volcanoes and co2 tho, just deflection as usual.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

At least I don't get paid for my opinions unlike those 'scientists'.

That More interested in a paycheck than actual science.

So wired doesn't count.

Moving on.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: queenofswords

Oh please, I understood it fine. You are making your usual church of climate 'point' and trying to equate the science to religious scripture. I don't think you understand how off base that is and how different those two things are.

I also didn't say that you don't care, just said this "since this can happen we shouldn't worry about anything" is stupid. Yes a super volcano can go off, but that doesn't change anything about the changing of the climate. So save the ad homs and let's talk about that.


No you don't and no I'm not.
There is a Church of Climatology and it is becoming more and more radicalized.

Climate changes. Sea levels rise (although now they are showing they are actually going down in some areas where they were predicted to go up....go figure...."new light"....different model?...who knows.)

If we didn't have the radical extremists spouting "Climate Scientists Akbar" every time we get hit with a change in some statistical revelation and new interpretation, a reasonable conversation might be had.

But, damn! All they talk about is some new project that needs more funding, so pass the plate around the congregation one more time!



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

By all means explain it the simpleton you think I am. Seems a pretty straight forward since you continue to refer to the church of climate change.



There is a Church of Climatology and it is becoming more and more radicalized.

Which goes back to your little story that if you dare to question it and it's 'scripture' you will be lectured.



Climate changes. Sea levels rise (although now they are showing they are actually going down in some areas where they were predicted to go up....go figure...."new light"....different model?...who knows.)

Back it up!
What is so hard about the idea of making a claim and then backing it up...
Here are mine.
ocean.nationalgeographic.com...
www.skepticalscience.com...
climate.nasa.gov...
Here is what I am sure you are talking about.
www.scientificamerican.com...
Hardly saying that they are dropping, just that one area is due to a phenomenon.
a reply to: neo96

I don't get paid for mine either, but the guys that you are eating up the info from sure as hell do!
Funny how only one side of this can be labeled pay to say in your eyes, mental gymnastics for sure.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: neo96

I particularly liked the part in the OP where it said HUMANS are releasing carbon 10 times faster than anything in the past 60million years.
I didnt even bother reading the rest.


That is a flat out lie.

Because Yellowstone erupted 3 times within that time frame.

Well within 60 million, and it changed the WORLD.



Because of the CO2 it released?

I don't think so. Your comparison is not valid.


As for the rest of the world, it would face a few years of mild climate change caused by the supereruption's ash cloud, which would wrap around the globe, casting Earth in shadow for several days and altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere for a decade or so. However, recent research shows the global impacts of supervolcanoes are less severe than scientists once thought, and a Yellowstone supereruption might be especially unimposing because its magma contains minimal sulfur. Sulfur gas produces particles called aerosols, which can cool the climate by blocking sunlight.



www.livescience.com...
edit on 24-3-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
And to be clear, I am taking a neutral position here. The way I interprete it, they are saying that man has released more CO2 so far than any single event in the last 66 million years.

Now if their scientific method is accurate and trustworthy is hard to tell.
edit on 24-3-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



And if it even means anything if it's true.
edit on 24-3-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Wonderful stuff from these climate guys, now they come up with a new set of proxies to cover 66 million years, where in the first 60million it was just the Earth farting. Apart from that, there are great differences in results of proxies going back that far. some noted a maximum of global warmth that atmospheric carbon dioxide values were at 700 – 900ppm carbon other proxies indicated carbon dioxide of over 2,000 ppm. Yet these guys seem to need to calculate somehow from the 1850's, with pretty crappy monitoring from then to now, that we are the fastest show on Earth...ever?

I think they all need a career change, that could yet happen too, maybe they should join the magic circle.
Oh! and speaking of career changes, it seems the hard nosed Aussies are cutting climate careering, and what are the career boyos shouting about now they have got the shove...yus' shouldn't be doing this, because we don't yet know what's going to happen......
but, but but, isn't the science irrefutable? it's done and dusted?...we refuse discuss it with anyone who has an alternative view.
It seems to me that a lot of cold air is penetrating the corridors of climate change careerers, and that they are getting desperate, in trying to replace it with yet more hot air.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: StoutBroux

I am not taking a stand on either side of the discussion, but it seems that you are not getting the concept.


I got the concept, green house gasses were around long before humans and will be here long after we're gone. But how many humans were on the planet 66M years ago? Of course it would be unprecedented now, we now have more humans. And just how do they measure HUMAN carbon released vs NON-HUMAN carbon released? Please, do tell.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux




And just how do they measure HUMAN carbon released vs NON-HUMAN carbon released? Please, do tell.


If you had read, and/or understood, the OP article or the link I posted on page 1 you would have known the answer to that.

But to help you along, and by that I mean "hop along sport", by taking samples of deepsea sediments of specific eras and by calculating the amount of fossil fuels we have burned sofar.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Good thing it doesn't mean a whole lot.

Taken from IPCC:



So basically... more CO2 won't impact us much.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief




by taking samples of deepsea sediments of specific eras and by calculating the amount of fossil fuels we have burned sofar.



.....stop it! You're making my sides hurt.




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Wow, it proves to be quite difficult to simply point out some facts, or supposed facts, for clarity of the discussion, without arousing the anger of climate change skeptics who seem to resort to derp derp arguments pretty fast.

Again, not even saying that I am not a skeptic.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Alien Abduct
Good luck with that. Some wish to drown out meaningful discussions with unintelligent dribble.

The science is clear, humans are responsible for an enormous source of CO2.




the science is clear alright....these models have been debunked. these so called 97 percent consesnsus is actualy that percentage OF 37 scientist who work in th e field. not every flipping scientist.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: DutchMasterChief


.....stop it! You're making my sides hurt.



by taking samples of deepsea sediments of specific eras and by calculating the amount of fossil fuels we have burned sofar.



well that convinces me 100%.




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

The science has not been debunked... Some people like to say that but hardly the case. And yes the 97 percent is not all scientist, if a person says that, they are wrong.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
It's kind of hard to argue with anyone in this thread because the detractors insist that whatever data that there may be is either falsified or just wrong.

In their world there are no experts and whoever claims to be an expert has an ulterior motive if it doesn't align with their worldview.

The planet isn't warming and we have no effect on the world we live in, move along, move along.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Based on your extensive experience with these methods? Do you see an inherent problem with that specific concept?

Methods like that have been used to establish other data that none of you would probably dismiss right of the bat, in other situations not involving climate change.

Derp.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: DutchMasterChief


.....stop it! You're making my sides hurt.



by taking samples of deepsea sediments of specific eras and by calculating the amount of fossil fuels we have burned sofar.



well that convinces me 100%.





Yeah, what a bunch of MALARKY. If he believes that, I have a planet I'd like to sell him. It begins with E and ends with arth.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join