It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


This is Why it is Not Possible that CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 06:04 AM

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: rexsblues

Watched that last night.

Didn't they say that people exhale 40ppm of CO2 with every breath? 7+ bil ppl. Plus whatever ppm animals exhale.

Also the very high clouds are the ones that keep the infrared waves/rays from escaping back out into space.

The whole AGW is BS.

Oh FFS......This site is getting dumber.

If animals breathe out more CO2 and less Oxygen where the hell do you think the Oxygen comes from for animals to survive year after year for hundreds of millions of years? Plants...they do the opposite. The Earths atmosphere is in balance with plants (+plankton the greater contributor) balancing animals so that we can all get along. In the age of the dinosaurs the balance was different hence the temperature was different DUH!!!!! So if we change the balance of CO2 by overwhelming the natural mechanisms that balance one another we end up triggering a change. Well done humans.

Guess what the weather is in balance as well. Please have a read online about heat transfer in the atmosphere. Some have pretty pictures to help depending on your level of understanding of scientific principles. Choose one or many! But guess what they all lead to the same conclusion increased CO2 increased trapped heat.

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 09:52 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Ok fair enough.

But if its not CO2, how is the global government going to calculate the tax bill theyre going to send me for increasing the temperature of the Earth from breathing and heating my home and driving my car and stuff?

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 10:13 AM
The "Left" has to declare CO2 to be a green house gas so they can tax your breath. They are so determined to tax Americans into poverty and distribute their wealth to the rest of the world.
edit on 5-12-2016 by buddah6 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 10:34 AM
Why only start your graph at 1970? Why not compare the carbon levels going back thousands of years using ice core data:

Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

Do you see that the rate of change, since the industrial revolution? How do you explain that, the sun was having a bad 200 years?
edit on 05America/ChicagoMonday2016pMon, 05 Dec 2016 10:38:12 -0600am312016Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:38:12 -0600 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 10:49 AM
a reply to: buddah6

originally posted by: buddah6
The "Left" has to declare CO2 to be a green house gas so they can tax your breath. They are so determined to tax Americans into poverty and distribute their wealth to the rest of the world.

If this was a left-vs-rightwing issue, how do you explain green-conservative pragmatists accepting the contribution of science and rationalism?

***Please don't make this a left-right issue... it only makes your rightwing look stupid - and might have a negative effect on conservatism as a whole.
edit on 5-12-2016 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 04:25 PM
a reply to: ColCurious

Again wrong. The AGW camp has always claimed CO2 is the most important factor behind climate change/agw. Even to the point of claiming it is more important than the Sun itself... 18 years of data showing that CO2 is not warming the atmosphere as has been claimed is more than enough time. More so when the majority of the CO2 molecules released 18 years ago are no longer in the atmosphere as CO2 molecules. The AGW camp always try to make up new claims when their argument is shown to be wrong time and time again. The warming that CO2 produces is negligible...

The statements made by the U.S. EPA chief when she was confronted about lowering the U.S. CO2 emissions to the levels in 1990 which would "supposedly" lower temperatures by 0.01 degree and her argument that the "climate rules are about reinventing a global economy", and that these "regulations shouldn't be measured by how much temperature is lowered" shows that the whole AGW claim is nothing but a scam.

Instead what this is doing is to allow the globalists a new way to control people's lives. Tens of thousands of people across the U.S. have lost their jobs because of the close down of the coal industry, and the close down of the majority of oil rigs across the U.S. and more jobs will be lost because they want to lower CO2 emissions more. (btw, I do not own even one share on any oil, or coal company. I know some idiots will even try to claim that when their religion is shown to be a farce)

I can't wait until President Obama leaves office and common sense once again rules our country instead of giving more and more control to the UN, and instead of trying to make the U.S. a third world nation over a farce. Let's hope we can make America great again. That's only if democrats don't try to steal the election, which they are still trying to do.

edit on 5-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 05:24 PM

originally posted by: deloprator20000
Do you see that the rate of change, since the industrial revolution? How do you explain that, the sun was having a bad 200 years?

That's another false argument made by the AGW camp... The sun had been very active until about the year 2005.

Major Magentic Storms 1868-2007
According to the AA* criteria

Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

There is also the weakening of Earth's magnetic field that we have to take in consideration. The entire solar system seems to be reacting to the more energy we are receiving from outside the solar system from an unknown source.

Planets in the solar system have been experiencing dramatic climate change, in the form of warming nonetheless, and to this day they are still experiencing warming, just like Earth. But somehow just on Earth it "must be CO2 causing climate change" when there is no real evidence for this?

The sun itself is changing, and we are seeing the sun emit more soft x-rays than it should according to NASA.

March 24, 2015
NASA-Funded Mission Studies the Sun in Soft X-Rays


Each wavelength of light from the sun inherently carries information about the kind of process that emitted the light, so looking at soft X-rays provides a new way to figure out what is happening on our closest star. For example, the sun's atmosphere, the corona, is 1,000 times hotter than its surface, and scientists do not yet understand the details of why. The soft X-ray detector brought home data showing that a significant amount of soft X-rays – more than expected – were seen when there are even a small amount of magnetically complex sunspots. Identifying what process within these magnetically active regions contributes to the great increase in soft X-rays could hold clues for what's helping to heat the corona. A paper on these results appeared in the Astrophysical Journal Letters on March 18, 2015.

The soft X-ray detector flew first on June 23, 2012, and again on October 21, 2013.

During both flights, there were only a few complex active regions on the sun's surface – indeed, very few during the 2012 flight. Yet, in both flights the detector saw 1000 times more soft X-rays than had been seen by another experiment in 2009. Even a slight extra amount of solar activity in the form of these active regions, led to substantially more output in the soft X-ray wavelengths.

This is also happening at a time when the Sun itself is changing.

Just like the planets in the solar system are changing and reacting to this new region of the local bubble we are encountering.

As i wrote in another thread:

Even back in 2002 we knew Pluto's atmospheric pressure had triple as it was warming the more it moved away from the sun, and this had been happening for 14 years. So Pluto, and maybe even Charon have been warming since 1988, and to this day they are still warming inexplicably for 28 years at least.

Pluto and it's moon are too small to be able to produce and maintain this heat internally. Perhaps it is time to look for an outside cause to this warming which seems to be happening in several planets in the solar system, including on Earth.

Scientists find evidence of global warming on Mars

The article above is from May 2016. Mars has also been warming since at least 2001.

Climate Change on Jupiter.
Is shrinking superstorm evidence of climate change on Jupiter?

Climate change on Saturn.

The sudden warming of Saturn at least since 2004 which NASA could not truly explain.

The inexplicable enormous storms that appeared on a normally free storm Saturn but have appeared earlier than ever before.

And now.

Hexagon on Saturn: Nasa scientists ponder colour-changing north pole

Saturn's moon Titan also undergoing warming.
Is Titan Earth's evil twin? Saturn's moon has giant dunes made of METHANE that hint at dramatic global warming

The unexpected warm temperatures of Saturn's moon Enceladus.

It is true that the composition of the atmospheres of all solar system planets are different. But isn't it too much of a coincidence that all these changes are occurring at the same time Earth is undergoing similar changes?

Then there are the other changes we see occurring on Earth. The AGW camp has claimed the warming in antarctica has been caused by CO@, when it fact we later found out it was the increase in underwater volcano activity which is to this day melting areas of the ocean including in Antarctica.

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Or despite the false data being posted by the USGS website, there has been an exponential increase in earthquake activity on the globe as exposed by two USGS seismologists.

(continued below)

edit on 5-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 05:42 PM

The 2010–2014.3 global earthquake rate increase
Tom Parsons 1 and Eric L. Geist 1

1 U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA
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.,]. 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.

The two USGS seismologists who posted their findings are Tom Parsons and Eric L. Geist.

The Earth, just like other planets and even moons in the solar system are undergoing climate changes, in the form of warming, and other geological changes which seems to continue to increase. But somehow this cannot be related to what is happening to Earth, even when more and more evidence shows that CO2 is not the cause of climate change?

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 06:42 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I agree 100% with your comments. We have to start thinking outside the box and looking at our galaxy as a whole because some other planets and their moons are also heating up. It's a fact we are polluting our planet and it needs to stop. But there may not be a damn thing we can do to halt or even slow GW. It's a fact that the earth has been hotter over all at various times in the past millions of years. It's also been cooler.

What many people are against isn't global warming per se. We don't want to be taxed on an issue we may have absolutely no control over. We're taxed to death already.

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 07:00 PM
a reply to: deloprator20000

First of all, because even back thousands and millions of years ago CO2 levels almost always lagged temperature changes... The average lag of CO2 behind temperature is 800 years. Changes in temperature did change the levels of atmospheric CO2. The warmer the Earth gets the more CO2 is released naturally on Earth's atmosphere, which is another fact the AGW camp love to ignore and instead claim "all CO2 has been released by mankind"...

Second of all, you seem to be completely unaware that despite the lies from the agw camp that the sun had been quiet since the 1950s or the 1980s, take your pick some say one date others in the AGW camp say another date. The fact is the sun hadn't been quiet.


ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model

That study was done for only 24 years, but it shows that until 2002 solar irradiance had been increasing by 0.5 percent per decade.

Other research had shown that before that time the sun's activity had been at it's highest in 8,000 years.

This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years.This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.

Then there is the fact that the strength of magnetic storms in the sun had also been increasing since the 1900s as I showed earlier in this thread.

edit on 5-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 07:09 PM
a reply to: yorkshirelad

I guess your level of "scientific understanding" doesn't allow you to understand that the lifetime of single carbon dioxide molecules is about 5 years in the atmosphere, but somehow you want to claim it is ok that the 39ppm increase in CO2 doesn't cause the warming that you and the rest of the AGW claim it does and instead want to make yet another excuse of why an increase in CO2 levels of 39ppm in 18 years hasn't caused the warming claimed it would do?...

What the hell people?... Now CO2 molecules have pms as well, and only warm after x amount of years long after many CO2 molecules have ceased to exist as carbon dioxide molecules?...

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

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 07:39 PM

originally posted by: StoutBroux
What many people are against isn't global warming per se. We don't want to be taxed on an issue we may have absolutely no control over. We're taxed to death already.

You've got that right. When the EPA chief admitted that their climate regulations exist only to reinvent the global economy and that we shouldn't measure these drastic measures on how much warming is avoided should have woken up the AGW camp. The suppose decrease in temperatures by 0.01 degree is nothing at all. More so when a 0.01 degree decrease in temperatures could be natural and it is within the margin of error. Instead what these "climate regulations do is imposing draconian style regulations which are enriching certain people meanwhile the rest of us front the bill.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 01:08 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't care for your silly camps. I'm not American.

You didn't even answer how you (of all people) would know the exact function with ALL variables to calculate the exact increase in temperature - while the rest of the world can't.

You're just confused.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there is an international conspiracy.
... and you've proven you lack the required understanding on page one of your thread, when you asked why time is an important factor in longtime studies about longtime effects in a complex interdependent system that in itself reacts over very long time-frames.

So I was wrong? Where? Your entire premise for this thread fell apart on page one.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 02:23 AM
a reply to: ColCurious

Sir, or man... You seem extremely confused. Let me help you a bit.

When someone talks about the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) camp they are not talking about "Americans"... But rather people who believe in AGW. Anthropogenic means "man-made" in case you didn't know.

As to how were you wrong?... Because the lifetime of CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere is 5 years... Which means it cannot take more than 18 years for an increase in CO2 to show an increase in temperature, if there was any truth to the AGW claim that CO2 causes massive warming...

Also, as to your claim that I am the only one who has noticed this, that statement is false yet again. Plenty of scientists have pointed out facts like these for a couple decades at least...

edit on 6-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 06:19 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are the one trying to confuse the reader.

Radiative forcing is a real thing....CO2 contributes to radiative forcing. More CO2 means more heat trapped in the atmosphere, thus a warming affect. This also applies to CH4.

Roy Spencer is not credible, he routinely spews bad information and is played by think tanks who are bankrolled by petroleum giants!.
edit on 6-12-2016 by jrod because: G

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:21 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You using the residence time of single CO2 molecules shows again that you simply don't understand the warming potential of CO2 emissions - or our carbon cycle for that matter.
All you're demonstrating is a lack of fundamental understanding of the topic.

Yes, you're not alone.
If you insist on your "camps", there is the special people who just don't get it (you) - and then there is the other ~97% of the (scientific) world. The evidence (you don't understand) lead to a clear consensus on global warming.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 02:34 PM
a reply to: jrod

Then, if that were true "that CO2 causes massive warming" why didn't temperatures increase by ~0.4 degrees when CO2 levels increased from 1998 -2016 by 39ppm? 39 ppm is 3ppm more than half the level of CO2 that increased from 1898-1998. Between 1898-1998 CO2 levels increased by 72ppm and temperatures increased by ~0.8 degrees.

The claim has ALWAYS been that CO2 is the most important factor and the one causing climate change... Again, if temperatures did not increase by ~0.4 degrees, which they did not, then the answer is obvious. CO2 does not causes the massive warming claimed by the AGW camp. This will also be the reason why the majority of the GCMs (Global Circulation Models) are wrong.

edit on 6-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 02:46 PM
I didn't read very many posts in this thread before calling it a night last night, and just want to stick an idea I had upon awakening this morning...

It seems that trees do what they do with co2 that in turn turn it into oxygen?
If we are just chopping trees and chopping trees, we must be forgetting to plant new ones?

Would that be measurable in this effect?

Thanks for hearing me out.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 02:57 PM
a reply to: ColCurious

Warming potential of CO2?... So you have to wait more than 18 years after CO2 levels increase to see an increase in temperatures?... You still don't seem able to understand...

You, and some others seem to be suggesting that "somehow" it takes more than 18 years for CO2 to absorb heat and warm the atmosphere...

How does that work?... Somehow in the "imaginary world of the AGW camp" cosmic rays, x-rays, and the Sun's energy must take years to reach Earth's atmosphere and surface?...

Or maybe after the Earth's surface absorbs shortwave radiation it takes "more than 18 years" for the Earth to re-emit the energy as longwave radiation and then CO2 finally absorbs this energy "after 18 years"?...

Or maybe in the "imaginary world" of the AGW camp, CO2 molecules somehow go into hybernation for more than 18 years and then from a thought from the believers of AGW CO2 molecules wake up and start warming the Earth after 18 years?...

I really want to know what made up BS the AGW camp will make up now...

edit on 6-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:25 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There are no camps in this discussion. There are those who understand the science and observations, those who are ignorant to the science and will believe whoever are whatever sounds good, and among others there are those who will try to manipulate the science and the observations because the understand tackling the CO2 problem will hurt their profits.

I side with science. Clearly you want to confuse the uninformed reader into believing anthropogenic CO2(and CH4) is not significant. This is a slap in the face of those who understand the science and the concept of radiative forcing.
edit on 6-12-2016 by jrod because: J

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in