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.

 

anti global warming rhetoric and America's decline

page: 4
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct

The irony is your are naive enough to believe anything that supports your confirmation bias.

Go back 10years on ATS and you will find I was skeptical in regards to AGW. I did my own research.




posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: snchrnct

The irony is your are naive enough to believe anything that supports your confirmation bias.


Let's not make it personal, that's not necessary. I respect your point of view, and so should you in a civil debate.


Go back 10years on ATS and you will find I was skeptical in regards to AGW. I did my own research.


So did I.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   


One hugely contested issue is the reality of global warming, especially in America.


That's because for over 5 billion YEARS. The weather has been in a constant state of motion.

That EVOLUTIONARY process is the leading reason we are WHAT we are.

That EVOLUTIONARY process is why our technology, medicine, and SCIENCE is at the level of today.

Enter political hackes,pundits, and people that lack critical thinking skills.

They ALL say there is some massive problem with the world.

So they are going to create new taxes, more regulation, destroy jobs, and wealth, and outsource pollution to other parts of the globe.

Yeah people.

The church of climatalogy is the government and they are here to help!

What nonsense.

And it's not anti global warming 'rhetoric'.

It's basically telling NEOCONS trying to control the entire world, and everything in it.

To get lost.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Those who build their houses on the sand and all. They were not meant to stay the same forever. Ocean levels ahve risen and fallen over time. its not necessarily Global warmings fault.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Ohanka
It is quite preposterous to claim the Earth is not heating.

It is also quite preposterous to claim we have any control over this. Unless you are in possession of a ray that controls the temperature of the Sun of course.

I'm all in favour of environmental regulations, because stuff like acid rain and polluted water is bad, but carbon taxes pushed by this global warming lobby are lunacy.


Your post is quite contradictory of yourself. Laughable. One sentence you say it's preposterous that we humans could have anything to do with a warming planet, then state that you are concerned about acid rain and polluted water. Do you think acid rain and polluted water are natural occurrences?


Exactly. This discourse (oh it warmed on its own in the past) like a doctor saying that because he read about cases of heart attacks back in ancient Egypt, that the patient in front of him with a bullet hole and a bullet in his chest can't be suffering from a man-made problem. "Oh I don't know what is making him bleed, it's probably some natural monthly cycle, not the bullet."


edit on 19-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: snchrnct

While some scientists argue that the warming has been mainly caused by human intervention, others argue that the influence by man is greatly exaggerated, claiming the varieties in climate observations are mainly driven by (underestimated) natural variabilities such as the sun, ocean cycles, and cloud cover. Unfortunately, these (unpopular) views and arguments are not tolerated in the climate change debate.


Sure it is! What do you think all the publications and simulations and experiments climatologists, oceanographers, and geoscientists have been doing for the last 50 years are about? There are extensive publication records in all of those areas.

Why is the 'natural variability' of the sun "underestimated"? Where is the physical EVIDENCE? In fact, the influence of the Sun has been extensively investigated for decades with numbers and observations.

More Solar output would mean in particular higher temperature anomalies in summer and at equatorial latitudes and at daytime. As it turns out, the evidence shows higher temperature anomalies in winter, in polar latitudes, and at night, which are syndromes of increased greenhouse effect as the relative contribution from increased IR emissivity in the atmosphere becomes larger.

If you want to say it is a "natural cycle" you need to provide evidence, in physics and quantitative measurement, that it is so. This has been going on for decades. Once upon a time, the statement was true that there was insufficient knowledge to quantify the effect of greenhouse gases vs other effects. That is no longer the case, because of many years of work. Mother Nature doesn't feel any obligation to give us the answer we prefer.

I don't want global warming at all, it sucks. But denying it is like a doctor denying smoking causes cancer or meth is bad for your health. Why can't we get tweaked all we want? Mommy, why can't I eat Halloween candy every day for dinner?
edit on 19-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: glowdog
from what i see the petrol-chemo industry is killing us. plain and simple
if not by being responsible ~for heating up "our" planet it´s killing us by poisoning.
...
if we are not already poisoned we are radiated,boiled and generally driven crazy before we are literally blown to bits.
...


Much truth in this. Put the focus on CO2, and blame all of us for being horrible people that use energy. Don't do anything about the pollution and poison that is everywhere - permeating the sea, land and air.

The oceans of the world are soon just one big blob of small plastic particles, and fracking contaminates the drinking water. Metals, pesticides, chemicals - but let's focus on CO2.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Please allow me to scream "Au Contraire!" to that of "Evidence 4"... The conclusion of the Vostok Ice Core research pointed to CO2 levels LAGGING temperature increases, and by more than just a minute. But we're not supposed to know about that!




posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Graph means nothing. It's fabricated. It is also a minuscule amount of time in the earths existance.


"CO2 levels are today, among the lowest in the past 600 million years.

CO2 levels were higher than today in 85% of the past 600 million years.

CO2 levels were as much as 20 times higher in the geological past.

CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher than today in the dinosaur period.

There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today, one had fifteen times more.

CO2 has never been observed in the geological record to be a driver of the climate, even when levels were significantly higher than today.

CO2, by itself, can not cause much warming. For there to be dangerous warming, other things must occur, which would accelerate the warming, called positive feedbacks. The most likely is increased atmospheric water vapor. Positive feedbacks have not been observed to exist in the past and when CO2 levels were signficiantly higher than today. Atmospheric humidity is also actually in decline. link

Global temperatures were mostly warmer than today in the prior 8,000 years, the Holocene. link

Did you know that in the past the Roman Period and Medieval Period were both warmer than today. The world then cooled several degrees from approx. 1450 to 1850. This period was called the Little Ice Age (a period of glacial advance, the same glaciers that have been in retreat until recently). Global temperatures the past 10,000 years were also often warmer than today.These temperature variations were not caused by man. They were caused entirely by natural forces."

www.isthereglobalcooling.com...


edit on 19-12-2016 by KEACHI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
It is quite preposterous to claim the Earth is not heating.

It is also quite preposterous to claim we have any control over this. Unless you are in possession of a ray that controls the temperature of the Sun of course.


You have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: superbanjo
Here is a good short video explaining 5 basic scientific principles behind the global warming theory, take the time and challenge yourself.



In this era of discussing fake news which stems from political views is a popular topic these days.

One hugely contested issue is the reality of global warming, especially in America.

It is my view that the anti global warming perspective is really an economic argument that is presented as a scientific rebuttal in nature. I think the real opposition behind anti global warming are pro business citizens and the global oil businesses. I think the opposition is based upon a DEEP concern for business and profits, and not out of concern for science or the environment. On the contrary, I think proponents of the scientific global warming argument is based upon a DEEP concern for the environment and not out of a concern for private business or private industry.

I think much of the problem with the Global warming argument is that one side is advocating for the environment and science, while the other side is advocating for business and industry. Both sides seem to forget that this argument is not being presented or debated on genuine terms, therefore, it is impossible to have a scientific argument if one side is secretly trying to advocate for business, freedom, industry or what have you, while pretending to be concerned with the science of the matter.

The petroleum business is arguably the largest business on the planet AND the American dollar itself is based upon the sale of petroleum. I think what people do not want to admit or realize is that a validation of global warming would bring about consequences, and these consequences would be a huge upset for the world order and potentially destroy a massive revenue stream for the most powerful people on the planet. Admitting global warming is real would not only threaten the US dollar and the profits on the most powerful in the world, it would also probably necessitate huge governmental action, regulation, public works programs and of course, the potential for new taxes. This to me is a far more obvious motivation as to why global warming is still in dispute...

Follow the money and you will find the richest people in the world who make their fortunes perpetuating our dependence on petroleum. Also, what conservative citizen would admit to something that would potentially grow government, increase taxes, diminish private power and impact Wall Street? These are real economic and psychological barriers that stall this debate more than science, science is not concerned with your feeling or your affiliations. Science does not care if Al Gore is rich, or if you enjoying dumping your hard earned money into your gas tank for the remainder of your life. On the other hand, the global elite are very worried that their primary money making scheme is threatened...

This negative economic and political impact for big business, elites, and conservatives seems to be a more reasonable explanation than the idea that 95% of all professional scientists are colluding to ruin America, enrich Al Gore or to initiate global communism, etc, etc ,etc... There is really not much of a money trail to suggest that 95% of scientists will profit from this narrative, while there is plenty of evidence showing that the richest people in the world are dependent upon the petroleum based monetary system. I think we can all agree that the most wealthy people in the world have exponentially more to lose, than scientists have to gain in this debate.

If oil is made obsolete, the Billionaires, elites and their banks will lose the revenue stream that makes them the richest institutions on the planet, this is precisely why the majority of studies that claim global warming is fake are funded by these elites and researched by scientists who are hired to promote a narrative that protects oil and banking interests. This also accounts for the fact that such a very small cross section of scientists claim global warming is fake, these scientists are paid to come up with the answer their employers are looking for.While we are busy arguing about how rich Al Gore might become from carbon tax, we are completely ignoring how the global and American elite feel threatened by challenging the supremacy of petroleum based products.

My point is, pro business conservatives do not seem to consider that the world is headed towards a technological revolution, and this technologically revolution will based upon the development of new sources of energy and the perfection of existing technologies that will eventually make petroleum products somewhat obsolete. Science and mankind are on the cusp of a new scientific era and pro status quo business forces and conservative politicians are too busy thinking about the short money and not considering that America will eventually lose it's place in the global order of things if we are not developing, patenting and pioneering the these future technologies. Other countries that are not embroiled in these kinds of dishonest political debates, and are more than happy to invest in these technologies, and use these developments to obtain a larger share of the global energy and technological development.

It is my opinion that the real demise of America might come about from the infantile and dishonest nature of our political system and not the disappearance of manufacturing. If our country got serious and pioneered to development of new technologies the way we did for , railroads, automobiles, telecommunications, electrical transmission, computers and every single major technological advancement of the last 200 years,
we might be able to dig ourselves out of this economic slump. But I think if we take the road of shunning undesirable science and continuously championing 100 year old technology we will eventually reach a point of no return and suffer a real economic decline that will be hard to reverse.
Other countries will take our place, they will develop the technologies and the patents and we will be old news, stuck in the past arguing about the
color of the sky hopefully...

How can America lead in the economy of the future if we are so committed to the economic interests of the past?



Good post. However, I think this is simplistic.

Many of the climate change activists and professionals are pushing for SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, which addresses BOTH the environmental and business/economic needs. In fact, it also addresses the social issues too. This triad is known as the triple-bottom line.

I agree with you, however, that the majority of the skeptics are either greedy people, who only are looking at short term profits, not long term sustainable economics, OR are poorly educated people being swayed by the propaganda of the former.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: jrod

Consensus does not equal fact. They used to think earth was flat too remember?

Who used to think the earth was flat?

I mean besides the people who still somehow think that way on ATS.

You've just claimed a folktale as fact.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: KEACHI
a reply to: Ohanka

"It is quite preposterous to claim the Earth is not heating. "

Even a large percentage of the "climate change" supporting scientists claim the earth is cooling. You people need to straighten out your false propaganda.


It's not a direct association to the issue. The fear of Climate change is an unstoppable chain effect.

If it was as simple as 'cooling and heating' this would be a done deal.



See this graph? Basically we die if it gets too hot or cold. Saying either of them negates the danger of the other is stupid.

You equally cannot live in -200/200 degree weather.

The intricacy of our planets climate isn't simple either. The same year the South Pole has record breaking cooling, the North Pole has record ice loss. Saying the 'entire planet' is warming or cooling is kind of a broad overstatement anyway.

Not this year. Both Antarctica and the Arctic sea ice extent are at record lows.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL

This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.
edit on 19-12-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: snchrnct
a reply to: jrod

These websites actually do cite a lot of peer-reviewed science and other reputable sources! So please double check the validity of your arguments before you post them here..

Here's the only way to disprove CO2-driven global warming:

Prove that CO2 doesn't cause the redistribution of thermal radiation by absorption and re-emission.

Sounds easy - got a spectrometer?

Oh wait, here's one from a satellite in 1971:


Gee, would you look at that... CO2 absorbs thermal radiation! Oh, and about the redistribution part... see, we only get X amount of energy from the Sun. In order to cause warming, then some parts of the atmosphere must cool. It's simple physics... and for that you might want to checkout climate skeptic favorite Dr. Roy Spencer's UAH:
Lower Troposphere: +0.12 C/decade
As the lower troposphere warms, it prevents more heat from reaching higher altitudes. However, there is still heat being trapped up a bit higher, because CO2 is well-mixed:
Mid-Troposphere: +0.08 C/decade
Even less thermal radiation can escape the further up you go, so warming is less pronounced at the boundary between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere - the Tropopause:
Tropopause: +0.01 C/decade
Unfortunately, all of that trapping of heat down low means there must be something that cools. As you've probably guessed with the rapid decline in temperature gain with altitude, the next bit is cooling.... and it's a lot of cooling:
Lower Stratosphere: -0.31/decade

So go on, prove these three things:
1) CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation
2) The troposphere isn't warming
3) The stratosphere isn't cooling

If you can do these three things, then you will disprove CO2-driven global warming. Anything less will be met with ridicule.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: superbanjo

Nothing but hogwash... Plenty of scientists, including scientists who participated in the IPCC reports, have explained the contrary to your claims, that AGW has turned into a political enforced view which does not care for science.

This lie that "must be oil businesses and only them deying AGW" has been rebutted plenty of times. First of all, the problem is that the radiative forcing of CO2 is not set in stone because no one knows exactly how much warming it contributes. If CO2 was "the cause of so much warming" then most GCMs (Global Circulation Models) would be right, but they are not. In fact the majority of the GCMs are wrong.



Then there is the fact that CO2 levels from 1998-2016 has increased 39ppm more, yet somehow CO2 failed to warm the atmosphere by ~0.4 degrees C.

Of course, we will now get the same people who believe "CO2 is the most important factor in Climate Change" but they will now claim, oh but the lack in warming in the atmosphere is because of other factors"... Really? after claiming for years CO2 was/is the main cause of climate change/AGW?... Of course they have to change tactics now.

The tactic they haven't changed, including the op, is the claim that those who do not agree with the AGW claim, or that mankind is the cause of climate change are the arguments made by "oil businesses"... Shoot the messenger when you can't refute the facts...

Then there is the fact, which some of us have been trying to warn about for years in these forums, that the Earth and the entire solar system are changing. The Earth's magnetic field weakening, the increase in temperatures deep in many parts of our oceans which are tied to the global increase in seismicity, and increase in geothermal heating which has been increasing since 1986 at least.

The geothermal heating of the abyssal subarctic Pacific Ocean

Yet geothermal heating has also been found to have continued increasing in the Pacific ocean.


Bottom water warming in the North Pacific Ocean

Masao Fukasawa1, Howard Freeland2, Ron Perkin2, Tomowo Watanabe3,5, Hiroshi Uchida1 & Ayako Nishina4

Ocean Observation and Research Department, Japan Marine Science and Technology Centre, Yokosuka, 237-0061, Japan
The Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, British Columbia, V8L 4B2, Canada
Far-fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Shimizu, 424-8633, Japan
Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, 890-0056, Japan
Present address: Central Fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Japan

Correspondence to: Masao Fukasawa1Howard Freeland2 Email: fksw@jamstec.go.jp
Email: FreelandHj@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Top of page
Abstract

Observations of changes in the properties of ocean waters have been restricted to surface1 or intermediate-depth waters2, 3, because the detection of change in bottom water is extremely difficult owing to the small magnitude of the expected signals. Nevertheless, temporal changes in the properties of such deep waters across an ocean basin are of particular interest, as they can be used to constrain the transport of water at the bottom of the ocean and to detect changes in the global thermohaline circulation. Here we present a comparison of a trans-Pacific survey completed in 1985 (refs 4, 5) and its repetition in 1999 (ref. 6). We find that the deepest waters of the North Pacific Ocean have warmed significantly across the entire width of the ocean basin. Our observations imply that changes in water properties are now detectable in water masses that have long been insulated from heat exchange with the atmosphere.

www.nature.com...

As to the claim of "how can America lead in the economy of the future"? First of all, China, Russia, India, and Brazil amongst other countries have already stated they don't plan on stopping their increases in CO2 emissions...

Second of all, the EPA chief already acknowledged that the "environmental regulations" is nothing more than a way to "reinvent the global economy". In other words to stop western countries from improving and to allow the rest of the world to emit as much CO2 as they want. Or at least to allow the "governments" of most of the world to continue to increase the CO2 emissions.

That same EPA chief claimed that the "extreme environmental regulations" they want to impose shouldn't be measured by how much warming is avoided. They claim that stopping U.S. emissions to 1990 levels would decrease temperatures by 0.01c degrees. Which is nothing but we won't be able to know whether such a decrease in temperature is normal or really because of the extreme environmental regulations...

Then there are countries like "Venezuela" which are showing what happens when "extreme regulations to stop climate change are introduced"...

Venezuela’s Energy Crisis Is Proof Renewables Aren’t Enough for the US

Cutting emissions by 20% like the Communist regime of Venezuela stated they would do by 2020, yet they are already having a crisis in electricity. Electricity is being cut off. People don't get the basic staples they need to survive and have to essentially fight against neighbors to get food, and in general a total mess.

By cutting emissions of CO2 you are cutting basic infrastructure in nations like Venezuela. Eventually people won't even get potable water because guess what process plants that make and transport potable water also uses electricity which in turn emits CO2. Fixing old infrastructure, such as fixing pipes, sewers etc, also need electricity to make new pipes, and by cutting CO2 emissions by 20% they won't be able to repair any of such infrastructure. That's the same thing that happened to Cuba, when "socialist regulations and rationing" were implemented. Now Cubans living in the island have to continue boiling water every day for the rest of their lives.

That's the sort of "economy of the future you want"?...



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
...
So go on, prove these three things:
1) CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation
2) The troposphere isn't warming
3) The stratosphere isn't cooling

If you can do these three things, then you will disprove CO2-driven global warming. Anything less will be met with ridicule.


The only ridicule is your claim that it must be CO2...

You are ignoring/dismissing the sun which is reacting strangely and guess what? During a time when it's overall activity was decreasing, there was an increase in visible light and for some strange reason now during solar flares the sun seems to also be emitting more soft x-ray radiation which does warm Earth's atmosphere.


Sun's Surprise: Even As It Relaxes, It May Heat Earth's Climate
By Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer | October 6, 2010 01:01pm ET
...

Breaking down the radiation

The study, led by Joanna Haigh, a professor of atmospheric physics at the Imperial College London,?analyzed the types of radiation that reach Earth from the sun, and the various effects they have on our planet's atmosphere.

Haigh and her colleagues used satellite measurements taken from 2004 to 2007, the declining phase of the latest 11-year solar weather cycle.

As the sun becomes less active, it typically releases less energy in the form of radiation. Previously, this was understood as a decrease in the total amount of radiation that reaches the top of the Earth's atmosphere.

In examining solar emissions during this declining phase, however, the researchers found that a large decrease in ultraviolet radiation was roughly compensated for, by an increase in visible radiation.

"Visible radiation is the only kind that, in any substantial quality, gets to the Earth's surface and heats the lower atmosphere," Haigh told SPACE.com. "We found that as the sun's activity declined from 2004 to 2007, more of this radiation was entering into the lower atmosphere."

Ultraviolet radiation is largely absorbed in the stratosphere, where it combines with ozone molecules to form what is known as stratospheric ozone. As stratospheric ozone depletes, more UV radiation is able to pass through to the Earth's surface.

Visible radiation, on the other hand, more readily penetrates into the Earth's lower atmosphere. So, if more visible radiation reaches the Earth's surface, the heating of our planet's lower atmosphere results in a warming of the climate.

"In just over three years of observation, we conclude that the visible radiation was going to be warming the planet as the solar activity declined," Haigh said.

This may seem counterintuitive, and the researchers are careful to note that their findings cannot be generalized without more extensive study of these processes. Furthermore, they said, their observations were made over a relatively short period of time during a potentially anomalous solar cycle.

Their research is detailed in the Oct. 7 issue of the journal Nature.
...

www.space.com...

Before that the AGW crowd claimed "the sun was quiet and couldn't cause any warming" but you were yet wrong again.


March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
...

www.nasa.gov...

That research only covered 28 years of data, but other research has shown the sun was at the highest activity in 8,000 years since the 1900s.

Now, remember that since about 1840s-1860s Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, and the weakening has only gotten worse with time.

Then there is the fact that other planets and moons with an atmosphere have been also warming including Pluto and it's moon Charon which to this day are warming alongside Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc, alongside their moons with an atmosphere.

Heck, it has been posted several times how the solar system is moving into a denser interstellar cloud which is a million degrees hotter, which in space itself you wouldn't feel but the fact that we are moving into a denser section of the local bubble means more interstellar dust, and more energy which of course would change planets with an atmosphere. Even the sun itself is changing, but the AGW crowd want to ignore this and instead to claim "it's evil mankind doing it all"...


edit on 19-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You said...

"...Even the sun itself is changing, but the AGW crowd want to ignore this and instead to claim "it's evil mankind doing it all..."

You realize that climate scientists work with astronomers and astrophysicists and have a good understanding of solar cycles and our solar system, Galaxy and Universe and how that effects our Planet and it's climate right? If not, you should read some climate research papers.

Again, I'm certainly not as smart as you and sometimes have a hard time grasping your charts and graphs etc, but I'm fairly certain you aren't a hidden genius that somehow figured out how all of the scientists on earth are wrong. That would be pretty amazing!

You also said AGW crowd again. Is it a crowd if you read and listen to actual scientists and believe what they're saying?

I realize we should question everything and there's no such thing as 100% certainty on anything, but it's like evolution and gravity.

Also, if you read some climate research papers or watch videos of actual scientists or read their summaries and articles you see that most of it is just research and data. Sure you'll get some bias and suggestions on what mankind should do but most of it is not "evil mankind stuff". LOL
edit on 19-12-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven
...
So go on, prove these three things:
1) CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation
2) The troposphere isn't warming
3) The stratosphere isn't cooling

If you can do these three things, then you will disprove CO2-driven global warming. Anything less will be met with ridicule.


The only ridicule is your claim that it must be CO2...

You are ignoring/dismissing the sun which is reacting strangely and guess what? During a time when it's overall activity was decreasing, there was an increase in visible light and for some strange reason now during solar flares the sun seems to also be emitting more soft x-ray radiation which does warm Earth's atmosphere.


Sun's Surprise: Even As It Relaxes, It May Heat Earth's Climate
By Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer | October 6, 2010 01:01pm ET
...

Breaking down the radiation

The study, led by Joanna Haigh, a professor of atmospheric physics at the Imperial College London,?analyzed the types of radiation that reach Earth from the sun, and the various effects they have on our planet's atmosphere.

Haigh and her colleagues used satellite measurements taken from 2004 to 2007, the declining phase of the latest 11-year solar weather cycle.

As the sun becomes less active, it typically releases less energy in the form of radiation. Previously, this was understood as a decrease in the total amount of radiation that reaches the top of the Earth's atmosphere.

In examining solar emissions during this declining phase, however, the researchers found that a large decrease in ultraviolet radiation was roughly compensated for, by an increase in visible radiation.

"Visible radiation is the only kind that, in any substantial quality, gets to the Earth's surface and heats the lower atmosphere," Haigh told SPACE.com. "We found that as the sun's activity declined from 2004 to 2007, more of this radiation was entering into the lower atmosphere."

Ultraviolet radiation is largely absorbed in the stratosphere, where it combines with ozone molecules to form what is known as stratospheric ozone. As stratospheric ozone depletes, more UV radiation is able to pass through to the Earth's surface.

Visible radiation, on the other hand, more readily penetrates into the Earth's lower atmosphere. So, if more visible radiation reaches the Earth's surface, the heating of our planet's lower atmosphere results in a warming of the climate.

"In just over three years of observation, we conclude that the visible radiation was going to be warming the planet as the solar activity declined," Haigh said.

This may seem counterintuitive, and the researchers are careful to note that their findings cannot be generalized without more extensive study of these processes. Furthermore, they said, their observations were made over a relatively short period of time during a potentially anomalous solar cycle.

Their research is detailed in the Oct. 7 issue of the journal Nature.
...

www.space.com...

Before that the AGW crowd claimed "the sun was quiet and couldn't cause any warming" but you were yet wrong again.


March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
...

www.nasa.gov...

That research only covered 28 years of data, but other research has shown the sun was at the highest activity in 8,000 years since the 1900s.

Now, remember that since about 1840s-1860s Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, and the weakening has only gotten worse with time.

Then there is the fact that other planets and moons with an atmosphere have been also warming including Pluto and it's moon Charon which to this day are warming alongside Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc, alongside their moons with an atmosphere.

Heck, it has been posted several times how the solar system is moving into a denser interstellar cloud which is a million degrees hotter, which in space itself you wouldn't feel but the fact that we are moving into a denser section of the local bubble means more interstellar dust, and more energy which of course would change planets with an atmosphere. Even the sun itself is changing, but the AGW crowd want to ignore this and instead to claim "it's evil mankind doing it all"...


Explain why a changing Sun or vast hot interstellar cloud would heat the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

I'll wait.
edit on 20Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:53:14 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago12 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

You continue to claim i must be the only one seeing this... Yet every time you ignore the thousands of scientists who disagree with the AGW claim, including scientists who participated in IPCC reports...

Ignorant Skeptics?: UN Scientist Prof. Trenberth says only ‘poorly informed’ scientists disagree with UN – Appeals to Authority: ‘The IPCC has spoken’


WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Not to mention that everything I wrote about the sun changing, and the warming Earth has been experiencing since the early 1600s is true. Earth's climate has been changing because the sun, and the entire solar system is changing. Not to mention the increase in global seismicity. The increase in geothermal heating in our oceans and the weakening of Earth's magnetic field which all point to Earth changing and not because of CO2.


edit on 19-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join