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.

 

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion


If the oceans are changing shouldn't we already have new forms of phytoplankton?

No?
Not necessarily. Not so you'd notice. Not in 75 years.


If phytoplankton isn't adapting to the changes shouldn't we have less oxygen
Not unless populations of phytoplankton are declining.

edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But if I change the set of variables used that determines the kind of life we have here or the quanitity of life that means that within a given period of time the equation will eventually produce a different result.

You would think that 75 years is long enough for new bacteria to form.

How long did it take the forest to grow after the 2 mile thick sheet of ice covering half of north America melt in a few short years?

Did it tale hundreds of years thousands of years or dozens of years?

How could the conditions of the ocean change without affecting the growth of bacteria I mean the coral reefs basically die over night or so it seems...

edit on 4/26/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: southbeach



most of these climate change pushers are being used to forward a social engineering program whereby we will be taxed to death in the name of carbon taxes by a Globalist corporate Government that will live in palaces and fly on private jets as the rest of us are forced off land so we cannot farm for ourselves and will be totally reliant on a totalitarian distopian tyranny.

And, unlike climate scientists who of course know nothing. You know that this is, in fact, what is and what will happen. Everything is fine and dandy as far as the environment goes, it's all just a globalist lie.
edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

But if I change the set of variables used that determines the kind of life we have here or the quanitity of life that means that within a given period of time the equation will eventually produce a different result.
If you think that you don't understand evolution.


You would think that 75 years is long enough for new bacteria to form.
Not unless a mutation occurs which gives it some advantage. If it's significant enough to be noticed in the wild, it would have to be a very significant change.


How long did it take the forest to grow after the 2 mile thick sheet of ice covering half of north America melt in a few short years?
I don't know. But how few were those short years?


Did it tale hundreds of years thousands of years or dozens of years?
Were those new species of trees, or did existing species take advantage of milder climates and expand their range northward?


How could the conditions of the ocean change without affecting the growth of bacteria I mean the coral reefs basically die over night or so it seems...
If you're talking about coral "bleaching", no. They don't die overnight. Bleaching is a phenomenon whereby coral polyps eject the algae which normally grow symbiotically within them. While it is an indication of coral being stressed, it does not kill the coral.

And, BTW, phytoplankton are not bacteria.
edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I think it's important to point out that we've only been measuring temperatures for the past 200 or so years when the planet is believed to be upwards of 4 billion years old.

200 / 4,000,000,000 = 0.00000005

So we only have measured temperatures for 0.00000005% of the planet's history.

Even if you're a creationist and youbelieve the planet is only 6,000 or so years old.

200 / 6,000 = 0.033 repeating. Essentially 0.033% is what you get.

So even if you believe in the creationist theory we still have significantly less than 1% of our planets years on record in terms of temperatures.

How we go about measuring global temperatures has changed significantly throughout the years as well.

How could we possibly say with a straight face that this year or any other year for that matter is the hottest year ever?

I noticed the slow evolution of the language change from hottest year ever to hottest year in history to the hottest year on record.

And yes, while Climate Change & Global Warming have their distinct differences in definition, essentially they are interchangeable to Climatologists over the last decade. Whichever phrase you choose to use, it is widely implied that both are the result of human interference.

So naive are we.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom


How could we possibly say with a straight face that this year or any other year for that matter is the hottest year ever?
Who says that?


I noticed the slow evolution of the language change from hottest year ever to hottest year in history to the hottest year on record.
I have only seen the term hottest on record used. We have no means of determining global temperature averages on a decadal, much less annual basis for any period for which we have no record.


essentially they are interchangeable to Climatologists over the last decade.
False.


Whichever phrase you choose to use, it is widely implied that both are the result of human interference.
More precisely, it is stated (not implied) that human activity is the primary cause for the current warming trend.

edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

so your discounting data on climate from tree rings that can go back a 1000 years or more?

How about climate data from ice core samples? Ice core samples perserve data going back many thousands of years.

To say climate data only goes back 200 years is disingenuous.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Actually, he wasn't talking about climate data as such, but annual global temperature records. Claiming that statements about "the hottest year ever" have been made.

The various proxies do not provide such data.
edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Who says that?


beta.fortune.com...

It's been said before, and more than once I believe.

Edit: I know it's just a tabloid but still. The nerve of some reporters & scientists to word it this way is stunning.
edit on 4/26/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   

edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Phage


Who says that?


beta.fortune.com...

It's been said before, and more than once I believe.


Last month was the hottest March in 137 years of trackingaccording to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, making it 11 straight months that the Earth hit record highs in average temperature.

Even more alarming has been the world’s average temperature for the first three months of this year, as it hit around 2.07 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average, said the NOAA. This marked the highest temperature ever recorded for that time window, beating last year’s temperature average by 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit.



The nerve of some reporters & scientists to word it this way is stunning.

What scientists?
edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And what does the headline say Phage?



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Phage

And what does the headline say Phage?
You pay attention to internet headlines? That's pretty silly. I don't. I prefer the actual science.


The nerve of some reporters & scientists to word it this way is stunning

What scientists said it ColdWisdom?
edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Whether it was said in a headline or it was stated in the report it has been said.

Your choice to argue the semantics first without addressing my question is a weak attempt at attacking my argument. You clearly agree with me to some extent about things discussed in this thread.

What is your motivation for posting in this thread anyway Phage? To prove that you can derail a thread by shifting focus from the OP?

Edit: I should really start taking screenshots of your posts before you edit them. You know what I'm talking about.

It's disappointing because I actually respect you.
edit on 4/26/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Who gives a crap ?

When the elite start their precious world war 3 in the Middle East and cover this planet in radiation, who exactly is going to give a toss if the planet explodes and joins the asteroid belt ?

The poor people won't care, seeing that Obuma is now going to tax the life force out of them all even more, whilst he spews out more CO2 jetting around the world in luxury.

Obama’s Global Warming Plan Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Whether it was said in a headline or it was stated in the report it has been said.
And the facts were elaborated upon in the article.


You clearly agree with me to some extent about things discussed in this thread.
I'm not sure what you mean.


What is your motivation for posting in this thread anyway Phage? To prove that you can derail a thread by shifting focus from the OP?
My first post expanded upon your OP. My others were in direct response to questions and comments directed toward me. How is that derailing?


Edit: I should really start taking screenshots of your posts before you edit them. You know what I'm talking about.
Be my guest.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So Phage, without answering my question with another question:

Do you think that climate change, specifically weather patterns, are the result of human interference with nature?

Yes or No.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

The question is an oversimplification which cannot be answered with a yes or no.

I think that human activity in the form of the introduction of vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere is the primary cause of the current warming trend. I think that the current warming trend will lead to changes in climate as well as other changes which will have overall detrimental effects on humans (and many nonhumans). I also think it is highly likely that the increase in atmospheric CO2 will have undesirable affects on oceanic pH levels.
edit on 4/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But essentially that's a yes. And it only took 3 pages of bantering for you to show your colors.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom




But essentially that's a yes.
No. You asked me if climate change, specifically weather patterns, is the result of human "interference" with nature. The human "interference" is the primary (not sole) cause of warming. Climate change is a result of that warming.


And it only took 3 pages of bantering for you to show your colors.
Are you kidding? Are you saying that my position has not been clear?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join