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.

 

Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
@Intergalacticfire.....odd 2x post by me

Quit posting BS!

It is like you are intentionally trying to flood this thread with bogus information and then do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify the bovine feces you write.

The widely accepted starting point for CO2 levels is 280ppm, now we are observing CO2 levels that exceed 400ppm.

Do I really need to show the basic math of how we get the 40%+ figure?

This is real, we are observing the CO2 levels spike as a direct result of human activity, yet people like yourself will argue against the raw numbers until your fingers bleed from mashing keys.

I don't know if you are getting paid to spread the BS, or just a useful idiot who falls for the BS that big oil, Roy Spencer, The Heartland Institute, and friends are trying to spread.

As a long term member of ATS, I cannot tolerate someone like you spreading disinformation.

Jarrod
edit on 12-5-2016 by jrod because: bah




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

what bs, peer reviewed papers not counting anymore?(I have my doubt about the peers also anyway)
Starting point of 280ppm, who choose that? why?
Comment on the papers i send you, not because you believe they are funded by the 'deniers'. Post something that contradicts these claims not blabla by yourself.
I linked you a dozen of peer reviewed papers I bet you didn't read any of them. Why? Because they were writtin by global warming skeptics, so that's nonsense science?
Why do you always call the global warming skeptics deniers? Where is the science in that. If there is one observation that contradicts the theory, the theory is false remember.
You believe being a long time member will get you more respect? I'm a retired man, do you think my age gets me more respect?
Attack the science not the messenger, that says a lot about who you are, congrats.


edit on 12-5-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

I am replying via cellphone and due into work shortly. I do not have time at the moment to dig into the abstract you linked from a questionable source.

As for 280ppm as a starting point, try NOAA and a plethora of other respectable sources.

Regardless of the starting point of CO2, no competent person can deny the CO2 levels are rising. Furthermore the link between the rising CO2 and our addiction to burning fossil fuels is intuitively obvious.

I get the sense you want to debate just to debate, regardless of the facts.
edit on 12-5-2016 by jrod because: fix



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

If you look at it that way yes, every source is questionable. So where do we go from here?
IMO the starting point is important to point out significance, it would make a lot of difference to start normalizing a thousand, a million or a billion years ago. Off course you can then debate the appearance of humans and possible influences.

If you trust the equipment than yes, a co2 rise is unquestionable, yet that doesn't say anything on the source or what the effects will be. For this we have to rely on models.

Here is a link to a paper stating that the increase in co2 levels are caused by a decline in geomagnetic field strength and a increase in geomagnetic activity(although the source might be questionable, "International Journal of Geosciences").
Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere

edit on 12-5-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

So you are trying to tell me that instruments from around the world are all possibly faulty and the observed CO2 rise that has been observed all over the world is possibly the result of many many faulty sensors?

That is just not probable and down right looney to try to blame the observed rise of CO2 on faulty equipment all over the world.

I see now you are trying to blame another source for the rising CO2, because your other explanation is irrational.

Why is it so tough for some to realize the rising CO2 is a direct result of us burning fossil fuels.
edit on 12-5-2016 by jrod because: e



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod



So you are trying to tell me that instruments from around the world are all possibly faulty and the observed CO2 rise that has been observed all over the world is possibly the result of many many faulty sensors?

No



I see now you are trying to blame another source for the rising CO2, because your other explanation is irrational.

I'm not blaming any source, I'm questioning it.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
intergalactic fire

fine-tuning, what fine tuning? You really believe what you just said? The next thing you are going to tell me is that we are the only living species in the entire universe.


You know damn well what I mean. Your feigned ignorance just doesn't chart. All natural dynamics are fine tuned, or if you prefer, finely-balanced. Too much of one thing within a mixture disrupts the balance of the dynamics and brings disruption to the equilibrium...hence fine-tuning.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SRPrime
It does make sense.
1 million years ago people were not digging up coal and pumping oil out of the ground and burning it. By the billions of tons.



what does not make sense is you availability to stay online all the time withe many different conversations; different topics; different scientific premises....

Holy shaaaite!! are you the Christ or just damn good a Google search and debating topics that you desire to dominate....

Time to regenerate and become ...Dr. Who....

...or not.... Maybe you know about everything and just resemble entities that look like founding fathers of ATS....

Stremor is watching .... and potentially compromised .... "All your base are belong to us"


No, but I'll take the compliment regarding my identity.

I took some time off this thread simply because you introduced some information that I did not have; I wanted some time to relax and think about it before accepting what I was about to say.

As the other threads provided a bit of entertainment for me that did not require me to really think or process much of my current belief systems, I had some fun while contemplating the answer to your illuminating post.

I am a bit happy about the entire situation as it is readily apparent that I have somehow gotten into your head enough to research my posting history. There is an easier method of getting to know me (you can meet me in person anytime) however that seems to be one of the more illogical (IMO) T&C violations; anyway your loss.

Now that you have had your say and revealed your hand (so to say), I stand corrected on the Global Warming data discussion and will keep looking for ways to further understand the actual situation. To put things really clear for you, I was wrong and you were right on this subject however don't expect for that situation to perpetuate itself very often.

See ya....



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Why do you always call the global warming skeptics deniers?


...because it is already a proven scientific fact that CO2 increases in a planet's atmosphere also increases positive radiative forcing.

The only unknown, the only thing left to debate, is how much or how little CO2 is needed before the planet goes into a full feedback loop that becomes unstoppable. It is unknown because its difficult to calculate how long "natural carbon sinks" can sustain. However, none of that matters because we know if we keep increasing CO2 without end, these carbon sinks get fully loaded, and become nonexistent.

The debate was over long ago...

edit on 12-5-2016 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Why do you always call the global warming skeptics deniers?


...because it is already a proven scientific fact that CO2 increases in a planet's atmosphere also increases positive radiative forcing.

The only unknown, the only thing left to debate, is how much or how little CO2 is needed before the planet goes into a full feedback loop that becomes unstoppable. It is unknown because its difficult to calculate how long "natural carbon sinks" can sustain. However, none of that matters because we know if we keep increasing CO2 without end, these carbon sinks get fully loaded, and become nonexistent.

The debate was over long ago...

So what about climate sensitivity, is that debate also over?

there is no need to shout, i've learned over the years to read the small letters too
edit on 12-5-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what about climate sensitivity, is that debate also over?


There is no reason to debate climate sensitivity.

If we keep pumping CO2 into the air, non-stop, which we are doing now, there is only one proven outcome.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what about climate sensitivity, is that debate also over?


There is no reason to debate climate sensitivity.

If we keep pumping CO2 into the air, non-stop, which we are doing now, there is only one proven outcome.

no reason? That's what it's all about. That is a big part of the debate, how much co2 in the atmosphere will cause a specific temperature rise?
I do not know, you do not know, not any scientist knows.

There is no proven outcome only a modeled outcome. You have to understand that most of the AGW theory is based on models and lab measurements not on actual field readings.
IMHO it is impossible to create a model on a chaotic system and I believe most scientists would agree with that.
How can you believe models that predicts a climate output for 100 years if models even can't predict what's the weather going to be next month.
edit on 12-5-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
intergalactic fire:

...most of the AGW theory is based on models and lab measurements not on actual field readings.


What the hell are you on about? Of course the models are based on actual field readings, that is what they build their models from, and are constantly updating their models with new daily readings. The models are not based on arbitrary data, but on factual data from the field. You are just spouting utter nonsense!


As for the baseline figure for CO2 of 280 ppm, that is derived from core and soil sampling analysis dating back in sections pre-industrial era. Too little CO2 in the air accounts for a very cold and harsh planet, too much, and that accounts for a very warm and inhospitable planet. We come full circle and return back to the understanding of the finely-balanced, and finely-tuned natural environments that are conducive for animal life.

Climate change won't destroy the planet, it'll make it very hard to live on, and all our complex societies requiring technology to maintain, just won't cut it, and certainly won't save billions from dying quickly or slowly.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
no reason? That's what it's all about. That is a big part of the debate, how much co2 in the atmosphere will cause a specific temperature rise?
I do not know, you do not know, not any scientist knows.


Right, there is no reason. You completely missed the point. And no that is not what it's all about... Why should anyone care how much CO2 will cause a specific temperature rise when we know it rises eventually, and we don't even care to stop raising the CO2? That is like caring about how many times you can get hit in the head with a baseball bat before it starts to really hurt and you die, when you know two things; (1) Every hit will hurt and adds up to death. (2) You will never stop getting hit.

We know two things; (1) Every small increase in CO2 will add up to a high rise in temperature. (2) We will never stop raising CO2.

Debate over. Eventually the temperatures will rise, so we need to reduce or completely stop our massive CO2 emissions.


originally posted by: intergalactic fire
There is no proven outcome only a modeled outcome.


Except for the planet Venus.... Oh and there is that whole Greenhouse Effect thing that actually keeps us alive and is responsible for our existence on Earth.


originally posted by: intergalactic fire
You have to understand that most of the AGW theory is based on models and lab measurements not on actual field readings.


No, you have to understand it is based on solid physics.

Radiation comes in from the Sun at one wavelength that is able to pass CO2, then it is absorb and radiated back out by Earth at a different wavelength that is not able to pass CO2, it gets absorbed. So the radiation gets trapped, as heat. It's called the Greenhouse Effect, and it is currently happening right now, this very moment, and has been happening long before we got here. We know exactly how it works already, and exactly why it works, and how it keeps us from freezing to death at night. We also know how to make the effect stronger, or weaker, by increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases.


originally posted by: intergalactic fire
IMHO it is impossible to create a model on a chaotic system and I believe most scientists would agree with that.
How can you believe models that predicts a climate output for 100 years if models even can't predict what's the weather going to be next month.


The "chaotic" part of the system (that you seem caught up on) gets canceled out of the equation when you factor in the fact that we will never stop raising CO2 levels, and increasing greenhouse gases increases positive radiative forcing.

Like I said already, the unknown (chaos) is how much natural carbon sinks play a role in regulating temperature. Since we know that carbon sinks can get saturated and become overloaded and useless when they are full, and we know we will never stop raising CO2 levels, we can go ahead and cancel out that "chaotic" part of the equation and start focusing on the simple part of the equation. Which leads to the inevitable CO2 rich atmosphere and extremely high temperatures. AGW.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Lets go back to the basics, just for a minute. Please answer these questions to the best of your knowledge.

1) Why do planets or celestial bodies with little to no atmosphere have extremely low freezing temperatures at night (in shade)?

2) Why does Earth stay warm at night, and we don't freeze to death like we would on the moon?

3) Why do planets or celestial bodies rich with greenhouse gases have extremely high temperatures?

I look forward to your answers.
edit on 13-5-2016 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Lets go back to the basics, just for a minute. Please answer these questions to the best of your knowledge.



2) Why does Earth stay warm at night, and we don't freeze to death like we would on the moon?



I look forward to your answers.

Ever spent a night at the south pole.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what about climate sensitivity, is that debate also over?


There is no reason to debate climate sensitivity.

If we keep pumping CO2 into the air, non-stop, which we are doing now, there is only one proven outcome.

You heard it here first. No point debating anything; not even climate sensitivity; apparently it's already a 100% certified fact (except for perhaps the inconvenient 1350 peer-reviewed papers challenging AGW).
edit on 13-5-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

If you believe the debate is over stop commenting than. Your answers are very unscientific with no proof, believing co2 drives the whole climate that must be a first.
If you leave out just one variable from a model it is considered wrong, climate is based on chaos if you cancel out the chaotic part you are just being plain stupid and ignorant with zero validation to the outcome.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

don't bother i already posted those a couple times but they rather like to read headlines from the NYTimes



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

no, but I did at North Pole(Alaska that is)




top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join