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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: stutteringp0et
The climate has ALWAYS changed. It wasn't constant before humans, and it won't be constant after humans.


so, those millions living in Beijing China, should know that their own air has ALWAYS been hazardous to breathe throughout their history....ok, got it




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: stutteringp0et
The climate has ALWAYS changed. It wasn't constant before humans, and it won't be constant after humans.


Yeah and 1 time this was a burning rock..
I was very unhealthy before.. Not anymore so back to smoking and drinking like crazy..



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

When you can't argue global, you go regional.... Convenient!



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pluginn
Yeah and 1 time this was a burning rock..

And in the end - it will once again be a burning rock.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: stutteringp0et

Care to write anything meaningful? Your one liners are drowning out meaningful conversation.

The fact of the matter is we are observing a sharp increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as a direct result of our addiction to burning petro for energy and transportation.

This is changing the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the chemistry and PH of the ocean.

To make claims that this is not a problem, there won't be significant consequences, or the fall back claim that the climate is always changing is not only ignorant, but irresponsible for anyone with a functional mind and good soul.
edit on 27-3-2016 by jrod because: edit

edit on 27-3-2016 by jrod because: ?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

And yours is the models are false, or debunked. That is the question I asked of someone else that you said you answered which you have not. So by all means post something showing that.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

I think it will take a massive famine or a world war over scarce resources like potable water and land suitable for large scale agriculture before the common person realizes the extent of the damage we are doing to this planet.

I also believe the ecological damage done is largely ignored and a major problem but very few want to talk about it.
edit on 27-3-2016 by jrod because: d



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Ksihkehe

And yours is the models are false, or debunked. That is the question I asked of someone else that you said you answered which you have not. So by all means post something showing that.


What? I'm not sure you responded in English. I'm confused by your response. Wtf are you trying to say?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Ksihkehe

And yours is the models are false, or debunked. That is the question I asked of someone else that you said you answered which you have not. So by all means post something showing that.


What? I'm not sure you responded in English. I'm confused by your response. Wtf are you trying to say?


they are referring to me. ALthough It was published about th eflawed models but of course they expect ME to find th e data for them. Ive done it too many times im tired of doing it.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Sorry you can't follow your own discussion, please refer to your first response to me and see who that post was responding to.
You said you answered the question I asked about the models when you clearly have not.

Either of you can post the debunked models any time, it is your claim they are false, so put up or shut up.
edit on thSun, 27 Mar 2016 18:25:34 -0500America/Chicago320163480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Sorry you can't follow your own discussion, please refer to your first response to me and see who that post was responding to.
You said you answered the question I asked about the models when you clearly have not.

Either of you can post the debunked models any time, it is your claim they are false, so put up or shut up.


Uhh, no. Please provide a model from the esteemed global warming scientists that has proven to be accurate over time.

Science isn't making # up. Science is providing evidence. Asking me to disprove models isn't scientific evidence.

ETA: or you could shut up, since we both know you can't put up a model that stands up over time.
edit on 3/27/16 by Ksihkehe because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/27/16 by Ksihkehe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: airforce47

The end is coming, earth is dying, better hurry up and let the government do their global warming scam solution so we all save the planet.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
if we die we die. if we don t we dont. screw th e stuff in between. lol.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Sorry bud, the claim being made here and what started this conversation is that the models have been shown to be false. You just want to move the goal post and then try and ask me to do something you refuse to do.



Science isn't making # up. Science is providing evidence.

I'll play your game though, even though you both made claims that you refuse to back up.
csas.ei.columbia.edu...
www.skepticalscience.com...
www.theguardian.com...
www.theguardian.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...

Now can you bring something to the table?



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80www3.epa.gov...

I like facts. I don't disagree with them, I do disagree with the proposed solutions.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

...So all that so you could link something that doesn't say what you have been saying?

And yes the solutions don't sound all great, I am not a fan of the same people making money right now running a cap and trade, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




The end is coming, earth is dying,

Nah. The Earth won't die for a billion years or so, no matter what we do. Even a major impact by a comet or asteroid would be unlikely to kill it.

On the other hand, the level of human misery can increase a whole hell of a lot, depending on what we do (or don't).

edit on 3/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Ksihkehe

...So all that so you could link something that doesn't say what you have been saying?

And yes the solutions don't sound all great, I am not a fan of the same people making money right now running a cap and trade, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.


The link was just literally the first thing that came up on a search. The point that is evading you is that I have nothing to prove.

Why bother trying? Cap and trade is a scam to make people money. Can I sell come CO2 credits if I breath less?

They haven't proven it's happening and all the proposed solutions make a small group of people rich. Nothing to be suspicious of.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You have nothing to prove so you post something that goes against everything you said...

You keep saying they haven't proved anything but that just isn't true, but hey you can just keep saying it and not showing it right? Spew bs and not show evidence.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought


When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.


How reliable are climate models?


Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modelers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.


edit on 28-3-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join