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: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Please explain the inherent flaw in that method.

And btw, it doesn't matter what I believe here. I simply answered your question, pointing out the scientific method that was said to have been used to come to these conclusions.

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




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Don't hold your breath, at best I think you are going to get the "WELL THEY ARE JUST PAID TO SAY IT!!!"



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.


I said the MODELS were debunked not the science.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Billions of us on the planet.

Averaging 8-16 breaths a minute.

Imagine how much they could make taxing such a lucrative and constant pollution stream.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Well the models are part of the science but fine I mispoke, show me the debunked models.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Faster than the last time Yellowstone blew it's top?

Or any other super volcano ?

I highly doubt it.


Don't forget Chicxulub, that wiped out the whole planet's dino's! except for the birds and reptiles and fish and mammals, worms, bugs, bacteria, viruses and plants.

Hmmmm, I guess it wasn't as bad as they think.


ETA;
Well the OP suggests CO2 was wiped out too.


edit on 3 24 2016 by burgerbuddy because: a little snark?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: airforce47

so you are saying we are all going to die. Cool, I agree completely.

I do have a suggestion though. Since it likely won't be today, or tomorrow, you may as well enjoy yourself and not worry about the silly #. When it happens, it will happen. Good news is, the grocery still has beer.

And I hear polar bear is good eating, so we can do something positive and not let them go to waste and just die when there is no more ice. Steaks and roasts. Mmmmmmm, good.



They are greasy, tho.

Best eaten in a stew.

Beer and bear...mmmmmmmm!



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: airforce47

oh, so they want more money?

mmmmm, no



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief


The research team developed a new approach and was able to determine the duration of the onset of an important past climate event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 56 million years ago.

"As far as we know, the PETM had the largest carbon release during the past 66 million years," Zeebe said.

Zeebe and co-authors Andy Ridgwell, of the University of Bristol and University of California, and James Zachos, of the University of California, combined analyses of chemical properties of sediment cores dating back to the PETM with numerical simulations of Earth's climate and carbon cycle.

The new method allowed them to extract rates of change from a sediment record.

Applied to the PETM, they calculated how fast the carbon was released, how fast Earth's surface warmed, and what constrained the time scale of the onset, which was across 4,000 years.

The rate of carbon release during the PETM was much smaller than the current input of carbon to the atmosphere from human activities.

www.eurekalert.org...


They don't give near enough data. Where were the samples taken? All over? Were all the core samples identical? They got the PETM, which supposedly happened 56M years ago and SUPPOSEDLY spanned a 4000 year period ALLLLL figured out. Yeah, ok. And that's the litmus? No way.

I don't find any of the information believable. There isn't anything to compare the samples to. It's a new method.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I do see that we have a discussion going on including naysayers which I expected. One thing I can tell you is that in 1969-70 I flew several times over the Mekong River Delta and it was a sea of rice paddies during the war. I just read where one quarter of it is now inundated with salt water and pretty much useless for agriculture. I expect it to be gone in the next 20 years and Vietnam better have plan B or it's starvation time.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: airforce47
I do see that we have a discussion going on including naysayers which I expected. One thing I can tell you is that in 1969-70 I flew several times over the Mekong River Delta and it was a sea of rice paddies during the war. I just read where one quarter of it is now inundated with salt water and pretty much useless for agriculture. I expect it to be gone in the next 20 years and Vietnam better have plan B or it's starvation time.


Viet nam is big on fish farming now.

Shrimp and Tilapia are major exports.

Rice is not much of a problem if there is water around.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.


The models don't have to be debunked. They debunk themselves by being wrong. If any of them had proven to be highly accurate over a substantial length of time it should be big news. I haven't seen that headline yet. I do see the word consensus often and even that 97% figure keeps popping up.

So, what exactly is this 97% and why am I forced to keep hearing it? I'm a scientist, all my collegues are scientists, and I talk to a lot of scientists all the time. Strangely none of them ever mentioned the ballot they received to vote on this topic. So what is the number?

The only thing I can be certain of is that 100% of the scientists that don't agree with the models appear to not be asked about it 97% of the time.

That was a number somebody pulled out of their @#$ to make it more convincing to the masses. That, coupled with the creative/selective use of data, seems to make the anthropogenic climate change crowd appear just as devious as their opponents.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Why don't you guys refute the OP with some actual science instead of just dismissing it outright with your meaningless words.

Show some links to some studies that refute this. Untill then you can deny it untill your face turns blue but it still wont make a difference.


Nothing to refute. I believe we are release more carbons into the environment.

One: The most guilty are the ones telling us WE are the ones who must give up OUR spewing of carbon, because they won't...
Two: Ten times nothing equals nothing...i.e, there is no demonstrable evidence we are adversely affecting the planet. If you believe we are, then kindly present the definitive evidence...after which, you can proudly volunteer yourself to be the first to stop and go kill yourself.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


originally posted by: neo96
I think the climate issue shows us ALL who the neocon's truly are.

Trying to control the entire planet.

Trying to control the very air,land,and water we use.

Totalitarianism, and here is some junk science to 'validate' it.


When did Al Gore become a Neocon? Climate change is a liberal torch.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: airforce47

Let's tax ourselves into the Stone Age. That will fix everything.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
humans produce co2, trees breathe in co2, the more co2 we produce the faster treas breath aka grow and release oxygen, this is scientific fact, please no one respond to me because im not looking at getting into a endless debate about this but i beg you to do your own research into the subject.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: airforce47

Wait til they start releasing info on what all the electromagnetic comms broadcasts, and form of electron transport electricity used in general, are doing to biology and your aura. And to the atomic backdrop of reality..

Except it's highly doubtful anyone is going to go public on any of that officially. The official medical folks can't even bring themselves to admit what incredibly obvious poisons do to health.

"but we didn't make it to the stars."

I'd dispute that, since it seems that the reason fossil fuels are so badly managed and wasted is because they're mostly employed by the same uh peoples who managed to wreck Mars when they lived there. Ok, maybe a bit far out for some, but plenty of people know about exactly what I'm referring to.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: theboarman

Sorry but I need to respond. That is correct, more CO2 is good for plants as it makes them grow faster and more vigorously - but the rate of deforestation continues to be very much indeed, as is the rate of increasing urbanisation.

Even if you mow your lawn (aside from the pointless waste of fuel to do so, and the chemical changes that extra use of fuel will make to the molecular composition of your very local environment) you change that particular microclimate, which then effects all the other microclimate cells surrounding it, which then effects all the microclimate cells surrounding those microclimate cells, and so on as its effects radiate out - and interact with similar environmental changes being done in other microclimate cells also. It's not just butterflies flapping their wings that make big changes happen.
Now you may think, well it's just a patch of grass. Yes but then add in just all the other patches of grass that one repeated task is being done to, and the frequencies of such. And that is not even taking into account the usual figures of about 90% loss of flower species alone due to such actions. Which means less habitat for tiny creatures, which means the soil gets less fertile, which means less food for other not so tiny creatures that'd otherwise eat those smaller ones, and so forth.

The diversion of water, loss of natural habitats generally, has actually (according to scientific measurements) caused changes to the orbit (rotation) of the planet.
Changing distribution of weight on the planet quite logically will affect its orbit. Something we have no problems accepting in engineering terms (tiny changes in weight distribution affect rotational masses balance, for example), but generally have problems accepting when it comes to larger objects we live on.


edit on 26-3-2016 by visitors because: typo / wrong plural



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey
...there is no demonstrable evidence we are adversely affecting the planet. If you believe we are, then kindly present the definitive evidence...after which, you can proudly volunteer yourself to be the first to stop and go kill yourself.


Wow, the level of ignorance you display is amazing.

If you want to see definitive evidence of man's destruction to this little planet, open your eyes and go outside.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: theboarman
humans produce co2, trees breathe in co2, the more co2 we produce the faster treas breath aka grow and release oxygen, this is scientific fact, please no one respond to me because im not looking at getting into a endless debate about this but i beg you to do your own research into the subject.


"Don't respond because then I have to back up my drivel, which I can't."


Yes, plants and trees may grow faster but they can only additionally absorb a percentage of the extra CO2 that is being released in a non natural way, and only for so long, and there isnt even real consensus on these abilities.

It doesn't help if you are cutting down large forests at the same time either.


Suggesting that plantlife will absorb all the extra CO2 that is being released is pure BS.


edit on 26-3-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join