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.

 

Climate Change Denial: Why?

page: 27
20
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

There are bigger issues with a more direct effect on our health, that's right. But CO2 is an issue by itself, I wouldn't buy into this sort of White House whitewashing after reading this statement:


If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. This graph not only conveys the scientific measurements, but it also underscores the fact that humans have a great capacity to change the climate and planet.

The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

Yes it is a significant event and quite possibly one for centuries ahead.
edit on 15-8-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Tell me, how long would it take to get to 1500 PPM? I will give you a hint, I linked it earlier in the thread. Next, tell me how much warmer 1500 PPM would be as compared to 600 PPM?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You have me a little confused here.

I asked for more specific references, in the form of paragraph numbers, figure numbers, or some way I could home in on the exact section where you got your numbers. You added links to previous posts?

I'm just not seeing anything other than attempts to develop the models.

The story on the river freeze/thaw cycles was new, and intriguing. It gives otherwise unobtainable data for that specific area. I'm sure it will help establish a link between industrial activity and the freeze/thaw cycles in that area... just not sure that will imply a link between carbon dioxide levels and the freeze/thaw cycles. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, and we already have evidence that airborne pollution can lead to minor albedo changes and reduced freezing points for polluted water.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I asked for more specific references, in the form of paragraph numbers, figure numbers, or some way I could home in on the exact section where you got your numbers. You added links to previous posts?


Yeah, thought you wanted to see the exact quote and context I pulled the numbers from. You take them with a grain of salt and that's fine, but now you'd have to show me that the observational data doesn't support their model. Which it does.

All I see right now is you making accusations regarding an allegedly biased model, without any substance whatsoever. It's a good point for the debate, but not one I'd gladly buy into without anything conclusive at hand.

But I see where this exchange is going to, we agree on global warming since the industrialisation and yet have to figure out what exactly it is, heating things up. Which is precisely why I've asked for more material on natural forcings btw. If we're able to show the human contributions via ruling out the natural ones, this debate might be over pretty soon. Which would be a pity after all, but a rather good one.














posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Freeze/Thaw cycles are also local, and not necessarily related to global climate change, especially in urban areas. Pollution changes the freeze point of water, especially where salt is used heavily on roads in cold weather areas.

Edit: Also, I have noticed MANY people confuse papers talking about CREATING models, and what to EXPECT from the model, for papers that are discussing an actual model that exists.
edit on 15-8-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Tell me, how long would it take to get to 1500 PPM? I will give you a hint, I linked it earlier in the thread. Next, tell me how much warmer 1500 PPM would be as compared to 600 PPM?


You tell me now!

All I've said is, that it will be there for a very long time if we don't tackle this quickly. It wouldn't take long to get there if we don't change a thing, let's discuss this in 2050 or 3000 again. Looking at this debate, we're probably going to see that within our lifetime.




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

No, you said we have to tackle it quickly. You made a statement you need to quantify. I already know the timescale, you apparently don't. Go educate yourself. We do NOT have to act quickly on CO2 because that's not what is going to kill us and our environment. Our other pollution will.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Ah, I see your question now. Fine, this one doesn't require as much reading...

There are several known phenomena which can account for warming/melts without resorting to carbon dioxide levels.
  • Water Acidity:
    In previous years, sulfur has been a polluting component of fossil fuels, and continues to be in some countries and international shipping. Sulfur emissions lead to formation of sulphur dioxide , otherwise known as 'acid rain.' As the pH of water is decreased by acidification, the freezing point of water is decreased, leading to ice melts.

  • Albedo Changes:
    The Albedo of the earth is dependant on the optical properties of the surface materials. Ice has a lower albedo than water, which has a lower Albedo than soot/ash. No links on this; some things are self-evident.

  • Destruction of Flora:
    Again, self evident, acidification of water can slow the growth of plants, which are responsible for evaporative atmospheric cooling (not to mention carbon dioxide to oxygen conversion).

There's three scientifically accepted forcings which are generally ignored or glossed over when models are developed. There are more, some so complex they are difficult to grasp at first, and thusly are very poorly understood and underrepresented in research. All are potentially important to a thorough and usable understanding of climate.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Ah, I see your question now. Fine, this one doesn't require as much reading...

There are several known phenomena which can account for warming/melts without resorting to carbon dioxide levels.


Where is the evidence that the massive melts in Greenland and Arctic is from acid rain instead of heat?

Sulfate pollution is also well known as a source of cooling in the atmosphere which should be substantially greater in effect. This cooling effect is already present in models, but the heating from increased greenhouse gases is substantially more powerful.



  • Albedo Changes:
    The Albedo of the earth is dependant on the optical properties of the surface materials. Ice has a lower albedo than water, which has a lower Albedo than soot/ash. No links on this; some things are self-evident.


  • Ice reflects more optically than open water which reflects more than soot and ash. The effects of albedo and modeling has been part of climatology and models for decades. For sea-ice it's a positive (bad) feedback: more melting ice means more absoprtion of optical energy, means hotter temperatures making more ice melt.



  • Destruction of Flora:
    Again, self evident, acidification of water can slow the growth of plants, which are responsible for evaporative atmospheric cooling (not to mention carbon dioxide to oxygen conversion).


  • ?? What effect is this?



    There's three scientifically accepted forcings which are generally ignored or glossed over when models are developed. There are more, some so complex they are difficult to grasp at first, and thusly are very poorly understood and underrepresented in research. All are potentially important to a thorough and usable understanding of climate.


    As it turns out plant cover is increasing a bit, and yet global warming is barreling forward.

    Mentioning a few physical effects which people know about already doesn't invalidate the known science and mechanisms connecting them.
    edit on 15-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

    edit on 15-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 01:37 PM
    link   
    a reply to: mbkennel


    Where is the evidence that the massive melts in Greenland and Arctic is from acid rain instead of heat?

    Where did I mention either place? The Arctic melt (which includes Greenland) is occurring from warmer waters in the Bering current.

    Do you deny that acidification is an integral part of the climate?


    Sulfate pollution is also well known as a source of cooling in the atmosphere which should be substantially greater in effect.

    I'd like to see some research on that.


    The effects of albedo and modeling has been part of climatology and models for decades.

    But has always been attributed to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not to freezing point depression.

    The heat island effect is another good example of albedo change that is typically discounted.


    ?? What effect is this?

    Transpiration


    As it turns out plant cover is increasing a bit, and yet global warming is barreling forward.

    Thank you proving one of my points: carbon dioxide levels increase floral growth rates.


    Mentioning a few physical effects which people know about already doesn't invalidate the known science and mechanisms connecting them.

    I'm not trying to invalidate anything. I am replying to a request for information on climate-related phenomena which has been unrepresented or underrepresented in the models. If anyone is trying invalidate anything, you seem intent on invalidating these examples of common knowledge when it comes to climate models.

    TheRedneck



    posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:49 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
    a reply to: 8675309jenny


    The Earth changes.

    Why can't you deal with that reality?

    You did know there was a massive lake in the middle of the western USA many thousands of years ago right?


    Why can't you deal with the reality that I've said that all along?
    Why are you unable to enter a thread regarding science without treating me like I'm four years old?

    Yes, I live in what was the edge of that massive lake. Do you know what the Loess Hills are? How they got here?

    If you do, I expect you to type it out immediately. In your own words. An explanation. Quick. Chop Chop...
    What are the Loess Hills? Where are they? How do you pronounce "Loess"? Are there any except the ones here in the middle of the united states (which hills border the high prairies and high plains and flint hills of the American Midwest)?


    Ready?!! And.........GO. You have one minute. Type.




    Chop chop? LOL, go do one.



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:03 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: TheRedneck
    ...
  • Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in those observations show temperature lags behind atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
    ...
    TheRedneck


  • It's actually the opposite, historically CO2 lags behind temperatures by an average of 800 years.



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:26 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: jrod

    You are just making stuff up and providing links to questionable sources.


    I am not making stuff up... You are the one who can't even agree with yourself... Heck, you have stated to think that AGW is a hoax and then in the same sentence claimed that you believe AGW is real... If anyone is a fool all you have to do is look in a mirror.



    originally posted by: jrod
    The pause you mention is non existent......


    Seriously?... Even Michael Mann, the scientist who created the debunked Hockey Stick graph, alongside other scientists have had to admit that there has been a slowdown in temperatures.

    Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown

    BTW, it has been pointed out to you several times that in 2015-2016 there has been a Super El Niño which caused the temperature anomaly we have seen similar to the 1997-1998 Super El Niño anomaly... Those temperature anomalies are not related to CO2...




    edit on 16-8-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 04:06 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
    Take a step back for one second climate change deniers. There is no time IN THE HISTORY OF THIS PLANET that our glaciers and ice caps have melted the way they have in the last 100 years. If the earth is just experiencing a heating cycle, it happens over a duration of 1000's of years....not within 100 years.

    ...


    Actually, you are dead wrong. There has been Global Warming episodes in the past which occurred in a human lifetime which is less than 100 years.


    Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary

    by Jonathan Adams (1.), Mark Maslin (2.) & Ellen Thomas (3.)

    (1.) MS 6335, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA

    (2.) Environmental Change Research Centre, Department of Geography, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK

    (3.) Center for the Study of Global Change, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, PO Box 208109, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109, USA and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, 265 Church Street, Middletown CT 06459-0139, USA.

    Abstract

    The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well-studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (Interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.
    ...

    www.esd.ornl.gov...

    In fact, Rapid Global Warming has even occurred within a single decade in the past.


    CLIMATE
    Abrupt Change
    Stefan Rahmstorf
    , Potsdam Institute for Climate
    Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany
    Copyright
    ^
    2001 Academic Press
    doi:10.1006/rwos.2001.0269
    Introduction
    High-resolution paleoclimatic records from ice and sediment cores and other sources have revealed a number of dramatic climatic changes that occurred over surprisingly short times-a few decades or in some cases a few years. In Greenland, for example, temperature rose by 5-10 C, snowfall rates doubled, and wind-blown dust decreased by an order of magnitude within 40 years at the end of the last glacial period. In the Sahara, an abrupt transition occurred around 5500 years ago from a relatively green shrub land supporting significant populations of animals and humans to the dry desert we know today...

    www.pik-potsdam.de...

    That's without mentioning the fact that the ongoing Global Warming period began in the early 1600s... It has been over 400 years that the Earth began warming...

    Here is a graph showing global borehole temperatures.



    BTW, the above graph is showing the warming underground which means either the Earth's surface has been warming even before the 1600s, or the Earth has been warming inside out.

    Does anyone remember what it means to "deny ignorance" anymore?


    edit on 16-8-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 09:01 AM
    link   
    a reply to: ElectricUniverse

    Looks like I made a typo there... thanks for catching it.

    Temperature rises appear to occur before carbon dioxide levels increases.

    TheRedneck



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 09:34 AM
    link   
    a reply to: BuzzyWigs

    I think 'skepticism' is a more accurate term than 'denial,' for some people.

    Science aside, whenever governments find new ways to spend money and regulate industries, then I think it's healthy to be skeptical.

    Science/Research is often a result of government funding, so it's not as simple as just saying people deny science. There is a possible motive to consider behind the science.

    Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in between total acceptance and total denial.

    Just my .02¢. Hope this addressed your question.



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 10:08 AM
    link   
    a reply to: TheRedneck

    Unless of course you are at the top of a warming spike. Look through the records. For anywhere from years to decades the CO2 continues to rise while warming levels off or slows, but still warms. So it appears that during that time period co2 is leading the temperature. However, when this happens temperature usually falls off hard.

    It is my opinion that this continued rise in co2 during the peaks causes warming and keep the temperatures from falling until co2 starts to drop as well.

    I will try and find the video, but it's a Canadian scientist that worked at Vostok who originally got me on that track.



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 10:29 AM
    link   
    a reply to: raymundoko

    Two things your post brought to mind:

    If one looks at recent temperature trend lines, as reported, it is beginning to look like a portion of a sinusoidal wave. We know that nature, being derivative-based, typically follows natural logarithmic curves, so this would not be a surprising result. What would actually be a surprising result would be a simple positive exponential curve, which would indicate an unstable system. Our direct observational data is miniscule with respect to time; we are likely looking at one small portion of an overall curvature.

    The absorption spectra of carbon dioxide is extremely limited (the same reason it makes an excellent lasing medium), and is not perfectly aligned with the black body radiation of the planet. The warmer we get, the less carbon dioxide spectra lines overlap theoretical black body emissions, and the colder we get, the more they overlap. It is quite conceivable that carbon dioxide acts as a sort of temperature control feedback to maintain mean temperatures... meaning higher carbon dioxide levels would increase the effectiveness of this control feedback and keep temperatures more stable, not less.

    Of course, neither of these are 'proven' and both will probably be scoffed at. Yet both are completely within the range of possibility. If they are scoffed at, it is simply another indication how far we have come from real scientific discussion and toward a pop-sci culture.

    TheRedneck



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:09 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: TheRedneck
    a reply to: raymundoko
    The warmer we get, the less carbon dioxide spectra lines overlap theoretical black body emissions, and the colder we get, the more they overlap.

    Not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain in more detail?



    posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:24 PM
    link   
    brian cox crushed some aussie climate change denying politician, he asked for proof, the professor provided it, guffaws followed the politicians strange reply.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    20
    << 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

    log in

    join