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: 29
20
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

No, even science agrees co2 did not cause the initial warming. There are plenty of papers that have been linked which try to explain the onset of warming. The end of the warming cycles are always spiked from massive co2 releases, the source of those spikes seems to be natural sinks released by the warmer client. So warming happens, co2 get's released, faster warming happens, warming peak happens, gradual decline in temperature happens right into an ice age.

The temp rises from ice ages are usually very quick compared to the drop off that caused them.

This research letter to Nature really hits home that there is usually a massive co2 spike at the end of or during warming periods. This paper specifically ties them to melting permafrost, a huge co2 sink. It shows that the warming trend may have been sparked by the eccentricity/obliquity of the orbit of our planet which produces Orbital Forcing.

The issue we see today is that humans are injecting co2 more quickly in the atmosphere than nature would have released it, which means we are slightly adding to the warming effect. We are still quite safe though and I personally would love to see levels between 640 and 660, as science agrees those are the best for flora and fauna when tested in the lab.




posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I would like to add that when the "nuh uh, so's your mom 40% co2 increase" crowd goes away the conversation seems to be pretty good and the scientific back and forth is great. This is the type of discourse needed to educate people on climate change, specifically global warming. It IS happening, humans DO contribute. The science agrees on that.

I think where some people are confused, like your list EU, is that those people agree with that statement above. Almost every climate scientist agrees with the above. What they then disagree on is how bad it actually is, how bad it will actually get, and how fast it will actually happen. All of those points are what are up for debate, and they ARE being debated within the scientific community.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko

This research letter to Nature really hits home that there is usually a massive co2 spike at the end of or during warming periods.


That's very worrisome! It means that CO2 concentrations may start to rise very rapidly even faster than human emissions (but thanks to heating from human emissions) and then we'll really be #ed.


We are still quite safe though and I personally would love to see levels between 640 and 660, as science agrees those are the best for flora and fauna when tested in the lab.


Yeah, well, in the lab you don't have to worry about weather and irrigation. In practice useful plant growth is mostly limited by H2O, and that depends on expensive infrastructure and moderate mild weather---you want good snow in mountain regions which melts steadily and flows slowly down rivers. More warming you get flash floods or drought---both lousy for agriculture and water table.

Also the minimum night time temperature is rising---that's bad for various important crop species.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Nathan-D

The range of frequencies emitted by a radiating body is the direct result of the fact that temperature as measured is a mean, not an overall homogenous value.


This is somewhat misleading. The temperature reflects a mean value to begin with. The instantaneous kinetic energies of the elementary particles is fluctuation.


Each grain of sand on a beach, for instance, is not at the same temperature as the grain next to it.


It's awfully close.


This leads to the emitted radiation being a quantized Gaussian function.


No, that's not it. What's really happening is that in thermodynamic equilibrium the charged electrons of a substance are fluctuating substantially and randomly, but with mean energy roughly corresponding to temperature. The variation is at the particle level.

There is ubiquitous collisional interaction mantaining this distribution. Now, the available electromagnetic modes are constrained by quantum mechanics (given a frequency there is a minimum energy/amplitude for a mode, unlike Maxwellian electrodynamics) and the thermodynamic equilibrium between motion of charges and electromagnetic modes results in the Planck spectrum.

The spectral distribution of which results from quantizing Maxwellian electrodynamics.
edit on 17-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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?


The effect of acidification on melting would need to be quantified and demonstrated as a substantial influence on albedo. Some short searches do not show any obvious scientific result or interest on this. The effect would need to be quantified and compared against the obvious one (temperature change).






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.


Here's something pretty old with 3000+ references to it. This is recognized as a quantitatively significant factor.

Climate forcing from sulfates






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.


I don't understand---albedo changes from human land use activity? (e.g. paving a light grassland with dark asphalt?) That's something certainly taken into consideration.





?? 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.


That's not necessarily a positive if it comes along with many negatives. Obviously the other extreme is bad for humans too.

For instance, in the ocean, more biomass from warmth is a pretty bad thing for humans----the good fish for eating live in colder waters. More jelly-"fish" taking over in warming regions are bad news for us.




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.


The usual use of these types of questions is not for scientific enlightenment but disparagement of the existing scientific base and understanding in order to diffuse the will for policy action.
edit on 17-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




No, even science agrees co2 did not cause the initial warming.


There's a lot of debate going on regarding this one point alone. I'm not so sure.

But there's an upside to this, more room for PlanetX to heat things up! Thanks for the additional info though. Orbital Forcing... learn something new today, everyday! Thanks for that one.



We are still quite safe though and I personally would love to see levels between 640 and 660, as science agrees those are the best for flora and fauna when tested in the lab.


Thing is, this lab of a blue planet tends to be a bitch with regards to predictability. Looking at all the permafrost you mentioned we might see those levels pretty soon, be carefull what though wish for.



Research examining strontium isotopes in the sediment record shed more light on this question (Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation.

So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).


*gluck gluck*

Interesting take though, there you have it: falling CO2 levels as the cause for glaciation/ ice age. You see... there's some merit in suggesting the opposite, a rise in CO2 could've started the initial warming as well. Works fine, just as many other theories do.

And you're correct, this debate is sheer infotainment for the nerd in my brain.


edit on 17-8-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I am a fan of sea level rise
it means more coastal property, thousands of miles actually...Considering 80% of the population lives near the coast I see that as a good thing.

We should adapt to the coming changes. We will lose some cities a long the way, but China for example already has ghost cities ready for it...



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


The usual use of these types of questions is not for scientific enlightenment but disparagement of the existing scientific base and understanding in order to diffuse the will for policy action.


If the questions and data disrupt policy action, then it sounds like the policy action is based on intellectually dishonest science reports...



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Heck, the Chinese again. But... but... but... the debunkers said all conspiracy-theories regarding their newly built ghosttowns are BS and their crazy (un)real estate marked was bound to crash bigtime.
Can't be incompetence or greed, they must know what exctly happens when PlanetX comes along!

Yeah. We're laughing... for now...





posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

You are correct about the rapid rise, and the IPCC has included models that we will spike to somewhere between 600 and 750PPM depending on how much more man contributes.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

If planet X were to come along ghost cities wouldn't protect china from the gravitational problems this solar system would have.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I do not say that we should ignore climate modelling while we work to rid the troposphere of excessive sulphur. I simply state that a known, obvious pollutant should not be tolerated while as-yet unproven models are developed. There is no reason we cannot tackle an issue on which there is precious little debate while we work towards a better understanding of a subject that is under debate.

That is not a strawman argument. It's actually logic.


Simple: we can measure...


Again, that is not a choice in the argument I gave. The point was that since we know that water vapor is a positive forcing, and since we know that warmer air holds more water vapor, it follows that this is a inherently positive feedback loop and would lead to instability. The fact that life has survived for so long without the planet becoming molten from this positive feedback proves there are offsetting forcings at work. The planet is inherently stable ecologically.


To state CO2 has no effect whatsoever would be pretty ...eh... extreme... and I have yet to see one decent study going down that road.


I have never made that statement. Please do not put words in my mouth.

We have had a pleasant debate; please don't end it with petty tactics.


Agreed. Which is why we have a load of evidence in this thread by now, models coherent with observational data for ex. We talked about them.
Or do you mean the lack of models for the historic rise of temps and CO2 levels at regular intervals? PlanetX should be incorporated in those theories you say?


You agree, but then you disagree?

Every climate model you have posted has overly large errors, and those errors increase toward the present time. That is indicative of an incomplete model. Any scientific field other than climatology would toss them out as bad models. They do not have accurate correlation with observed data; they do not have a proven track record of successful predictions.

There are two things we can do at this point without losing all traces of scientific credibility in those models: scrap them or accept they are incomplete and need further work. I prefer the latter. Blind acceptance is not an option if one wishes to remain scientific; it is only an option if one wishes to remove science from the debate.

Planet X? Really?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

It's nice to know someone else picked up on the same thing I did. Yes, that is essentially what I am saying. I developed the model independantly a few years back for a physics project... got me an 'A'.

You do miss a couple of key points, though. While theoretically you are correct that there would be more energy available for carbon dioxide, it would still be a smaller percentage of the total energy emitted. Also, the black body radiation curves are theoretical. They have been shown to be acceptably close when experiments with wide-spectra homogenous bodies are performed, but recent studies with more discrete spectra, non-homogenous bodies show substantially different results.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


This is somewhat misleading. The temperature reflects a mean value to begin with. The instantaneous kinetic energies of the elementary particles is fluctuation.


I fail to see where it is misleading. You just said the same thing I did. Particle temperature is quantized; observed temperature is a mean.


It's awfully close.


Actually, it probably isn't. It's either the same or the next quantized particle temperature. We can't make the assumption of equality.


No, that's not it. What's really happening is that in thermodynamic equilibrium the charged electrons of a substance are fluctuating substantially and randomly, but with mean energy roughly corresponding to temperature. The variation is at the particle level.


Again, are you trying to prove disagreement by agreeing with me?

What do you think a 'discrete Gaussian function' is?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


The effect of acidification on melting would need to be quantified and demonstrated as a substantial influence on albedo. Some short searches do not show any obvious scientific result or interest on this. The effect would need to be quantified and compared against the obvious one (temperature change).
Bolding mine.

Science is not the creation of phenomena; it is the discovery of phenomena. The ability of uranium to explode under the correct conditions was not a creation of science, but a discovery. The property existed since the Big Bang.

The fact that there is little interest has no bearing on the validity of the claim.


I don't understand---albedo changes from human land use activity? (e.g. paving a light grassland with dark asphalt?) That's something certainly taken into consideration.


PublicOpinion published a model report earlier in this thread that specifically mentioned it was NOT taken into consideration.


That's not necessarily a positive if it comes along with many negatives.


What negatives? I thought we were in uncharted waters with present temperatures?


The usual use of these types of questions is not for scientific enlightenment but disparagement of the existing scientific base and understanding in order to diffuse the will for policy action.


I suppose what I call an attempt to discuss scientific status, you call something else.

That is a subject I do not care to debate. I cannot and have no desire to try to discuss the concept of a closed mind.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Water vapor is not a reaction, it is the cause of the warming alongside other natural factors. CO2 contribution to warming is too insignificant. Again, the globe began warming in the 1600s, and if the warming started in the surface then the warming began even sooner. Water vapor accounts for 97% of the greenhouse effect, even thou the start of the warming was caused by the sun. The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years As the sun was warming the Earth it allowed the Earth's atmosphere to hold more and more water vapor which increased the temperatures causing a feedback effect from water vapor, and not CO2.

Has mankind added CO2 to the atmosphere? certainly, but not nearly as much as natural sources have. People are conveniently ignoring the fact that the Earth's magnetic field began weakening around the 1840s, and the drastic changes the Earth's magnetic field has been experiencing. Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now does have an effect on climate, and wild weather patterns.

Then there is the fact that earthquake activity has also been increasing.



...
The average rate of big earthquakes — those larger than magnitude 7 — has been 10 per year since 1979, the study reports. That rate rose to 12.5 per year starting in 1992, and then jumped to 16.7 per year starting in 2010 — a 65 percent increase compared to the rate since 1979. This increase accelerated in the first three months of 2014 to more than double the average since 1979, the researchers report.
...

www.livescience.com...


...
1. Introduction

Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Given these high rates, along with suggestions that damaging earthquakes may be causatively linked at global distance [e.g., Gomberg and Bodin, 1994; Pollitz et al., 1998; Tzanis and Makropoulos, 2002; Bufe and Perkins, 2005; Gonzalez-Huizar et al., 2012; Pollitz et al., 2012, 2014], we investigate whether there is a significant departure from a random process underlying these rate changes. Recent studies have demonstrated that M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes (and also tsunamis) that occurred since 1900 follow a Poisson process [e.g., Michael, 2011; Geist and Parsons, 2011; Daub et al., 2012; Shearer and Stark, 2012; Parsons and Geist, 2012; Ben-Naim et al., 2013]. Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media [e.g., www.nbcnews.com...]. We extend our analysis to M ≥ 5.0 levels, as many of these lower magnitude events convey significant hazard, and global catalogs have not generally been tested down to these thresholds.

2. Methods and Data

We work with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) catalog of M≥ 5.0 global earthquakes for the period between 1979 and 2014.3 with a primary focus on the recent interval between 2010 and 2014.3 that shows the highest earthquake rates (Table 1 and Figure 1). A variety of tests suggest that the catalog is complete down to magnitudes between M=4.6 and M=5.2, depending on the method used to assess it (see supporting information). We examine a range of lower magnitude thresholds above M =5.0 to account for this uncertainty.
...

profile.usgs.gov...

We also know underwater volcanoes have been melting glaciers despite the claims that it was CO2 doing it.



Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet
10 June 2014, 10:43 pm EDT By James Maynard Tech Times

Melting of a major glacier system in western Antarctica may be caused by underwater volcanoes, and not by global climate change, according to new research.

Thwaites Glacier, a massive outlet for ice that empties into Pine Island Bay, is flowing at a rate of one-and-a-quarter miles per year. The bay opens up into the Amundsen Sea.

The Thwaites Glacier has been the subject of scrutiny by climatologists in the last few years, as new information about the severity of the melting becomes available. Traditional models had assumed heating from subterranean sources was fairly even around the region. New data provides details about areas where little was previously known.

University of Texas researchers studied how water moves underground in the region. They found liquid water was present in a greater number of sources than previously believed, and it is warmer than estimated in previous studies.
...

www.techtimes.com...


These changes affect the Earth's climate, but we got some people wanting to blame climate change on mankind. By blaming mankind the global elites can implement their goals to completely control every aspect of people's lives. All living things exhale CO2, by taxing, and claiming we must control CO2 the elites have a reason to control all of mankind, but in reality these changes are natural.

Mankind has a lot to be blamed on, and imo there are more important things we do need to take care of. The Fukushima radiation that keeps seeping into the Pacific ocean is a major problem, but you get the AGW camp just wanting to shift the blame to simply control CO2. If you can control CO2, you can control all life, which includes us humans. The elites can implement a "one child policy" which quite a few AGW in these forums have been rooting for, and want enforced, alongside other plans to have a tight control over our lives. Many of these people, the AGW camp, are simply too caught up in the "peer pressure" to "believe" in AGW instead of making their own conclusions.






edit on 18-8-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: mbkennel


The usual use of these types of questions is not for scientific enlightenment but disparagement of the existing scientific base and understanding in order to diffuse the will for policy action.


If the questions and data disrupt policy action, then it sounds like the policy action is based on intellectually dishonest science reports...


That's not the point---this line of questioning fairly uninformed, and completely outside scientific discourse, are designed to induce doubt in average people that scientists know something serious that the average person doesn't.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Knowledge is not the exclusive realm of select individuals. History is rife with examples of powerful groups who have attempted to suppress knowledge via suppression of free thinking. Leonardo DaVinci and Galileo are two well-known examples of intelligent, innovative men who were forced by society to hide their knowledge. Tesla as well, was forced into poverty by his arrogance in questioning the 'accepted' science of the day. I would not be surprised, frankly, if someday historians can prove that the first caveman to discover fire was stoned to death for daring to admit it.

In labs around the globe today, people work diligently to apply their knowledge. They collaborate, brainstorm, and constantly ask each other questions. When they get a result, they try to get that result to as many others as possible, in the hope that others will rerun their experiments. Even after results are accepted, others still verify and try to understand the results on a deeper level. Long, long after Sir Isaac Newton published his Laws of Motion, long after those laws were universally accepted, one man questioned them again, and in doing so Albert Einstein showed them as incomplete. That had no effect on Newton's place in history, nor on the significance of his work. All Einstein did was advance understanding, in the process laying the groundwork for modern physics and inventions such as the GPS system we rely on today.

Questioning is not bad for science. Questioning is never... NEVER... outside scientific discourse; it is the essence of scientific discourse. Questioning of results is the heart of the scientific method. Congratulations! You just established your disbelief in science.

Questioning is very bad for politics. Questioning of 'accepted' facts leads to uncontrolled thoughts, which gravely endanger hidden agendas by exposing the lies that protect them. Questioning is the bane of politics. Congratulations! You just established your political agenda.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




There is no reason we cannot tackle an issue on which there is precious little debate while we work towards a better understanding of a subject that is under debate.


I'm just saying we have 2 topics at hand. One is pollution, the other is climate change. Both are serious issues and I agree with you, while debating the letter we should start cleaning up with sulfates.

Water vapour is a very complex topic and more than positive forcing only.

Thin tropical clouds cool the climate

We're still learning new stuff constantly. You see, I put some serious effort in our conversation. Don't get me wrong for making things abundantly clear when I feel the need to do so.

And while you're criticizing the models I'm rather impressed by this body of work. We approach things differently and hold other things in mind while doing so. I don't need the model to be 100% accurate to see the trend without any doubt, which is visible in more than this one model we talked about. You didn't like their tolerance while I'd say it's pretty good, but nobody provided me with examples of better ones. Opinion_wise I see no option to agree with you on both points without following your lead blindly. Same with the correlation to observed data - refute the point sufficiently and I'm able to follow you again. Lack of persuasiveness if you will.
Maybe you see the issue here: we share similarly high standarts, but they're obviously not the same. And while I agree to your requirements, we obviously disagree partly on the substance of your critique.



Planet X? Really?


Blunt questions aint sharp, have some pointed sticks:


"For the first time in over 150 years, there is solid evidence that the solar system's planetary census is incomplete."

Caltech Researchers Find Evidence of a Real Ninth Planet

You've seen the graphs yourself, something completely messed up the climate at regular intervals. Which was mentioned in this thread to explain away all human contributions to climate change, while ignoring the scientific findings regarding natural negative forcings since the mid of the 20th century.
I've simply added another angle, PlanetX or Nibiru are only common names to provoke more thoughts with.


Take care!



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.

www.mpg.de...

Read carefully and see that the study you've linked actually doesn't support the conclusion you drew.
If the sun would be the only one to blaim, we would've seen the global warming at the beginning of this active phase and not a few decades to it's end. Temps increased and yet the global warming only got started after the industrial revolution, completely unrelated to the sun's activity.



We also know underwater volcanoes have been melting glaciers despite the claims that it was CO2 doing it.


Aha. So you've posted one (disputed) study regarding the West Atlantic to justify your ignorance towards the greenhouse effect of CO2? Glaciers worldwide are in full retreat, you say they all have underground volcanos underneath?

Funny smoketrails though, errupt away!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join