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.

 

The March for Science Because There is No Planet B

page: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
CO2 is actually plant life...
...


lol, I meant to write CO2 is plant food, not plant life.

edit on 24-4-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Over abundance of CO2 SEEMS like a good thing for plants, but it is not.

One of the other things that plants need in most cases, is nitrogen, and the ability to take it from the environment around the plant. Unfortunately, too much CO2 in the atmosphere, while sounding like a buffet for the plants, actually inhibits nitrogen uptake, with pretty disastrous consequences.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Over abundance of CO2 SEEMS like a good thing for plants, but it is not.

One of the other things that plants need in most cases, is nitrogen, and the ability to take it from the environment around the plant. Unfortunately, too much CO2 in the atmosphere, while sounding like a buffet for the plants, actually inhibits nitrogen uptake, with pretty disastrous consequences.


but we arent to that point. it would take over 1800ppm to start harming it. ALso CO2 helps make clouds and that in turn makes shade and rain that also removes some excess co2.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Over abundance of CO2 SEEMS like a good thing for plants, but it is not.

One of the other things that plants need in most cases, is nitrogen, and the ability to take it from the environment around the plant. Unfortunately, too much CO2 in the atmosphere, while sounding like a buffet for the plants, actually inhibits nitrogen uptake, with pretty disastrous consequences.


Tell that to all the greenhouse operators that supplement with C02.

Greenhouses supplement with C02 for a reason, it increases yield and profits.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Charlyboy

That's preventative medicine. Still not a cure. Exactly what you're talking about is what Weed does, it prevents faulty transcription.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes, thats true.

But as I said, too much of anything can be a bad thing. You can poison yourself with pure water if you drink enough of it, and you can die from breathing air which is too oxygen rich as well.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
CO2 does not cause heating. If anything, CO2 causes cooling. Do you know what fire extinguishers are made of? Fire extinguishers are made of CO2.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye
djees. It cools because it goes from liquid to gas phase. It puts out a fire because the CO² replaces oxygen, which is an absolute requirement for fire to continue



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven
Teikiatsu decided (because Teikiatsu feels like it) that there must be more variables and so disproving these foundations is not needed. Teikiatsu isn't committed to disproving AGW.


Well that's a false premise if I ever heard one. There is nothing to disprove, because nothing has been proven.

If we know all the variables, why are there so many models? Why are there models to begin with, why isn't there one ultimate equation? Why do the models not recreate the past when using modern data to retro-engineer, and why do the models fail even worse for the present when they are shoe-horned to meet the climate models of the past?

Think about it, and get back to me.

Again, the four premises behind man-made climate change:

originally posted by: Greven
The physics - yes, physics - behind it are fairly straightforward and have been known about for over a century:
1) The Stefan-Boltzmann law explains how we calculate what temperature the Earth should be at, based on: its size, its distance from the Sun, and its reflectivity.
2) The Earth is warmer at the surface than it should be, but also cooler higher in the atmosphere than it should be.
3) There are gases known as greenhouse gases, which reduce outbound infrared radiation - effectively redistributing heating closer to the surface (satellite measurements from 1970):

4) Increasing any of these gases increases the reduction on outbound infrared radiation, which means surface warming and higher atmosphere cooling.

Which of these 4 things is not true?

Who the # cares about models? They are simplifications based on our understanding, sometimes tuned for specific variables. As they are simplifications, they generally are not accurate. Why do you care about models so much when you are utterly incapable of disproving those four points?

Remember what you replied to that with previously when asked to counter them?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Piece of cake: We don't know all the variables, and we probably never will. The models are wrong because the calculations are flawed. Earth is too complex to boil down to an equation, and that's before we start adding in solar and other external sources of radiation.

You don't get to hand-wave and say 'oh well there are others' because that is completely nonsensical.

Do you not get that? Are you so ignorant that you do not understand that those are the only four points that matter?

Those four points are the foundation of man-made climate change. If you are incapable of disproving any single one of them then you must acknowledge that this is the best scientific understanding that we currently have.

Come on - disprove just one - be a hero and save us from the evils of activist science.

What are you afraid of... reality?
edit on 16Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:48:04 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Don't you tire of posting the same graph?

You get no response with it, why don't you try something new?

Like show the members how sea level is rising or something?



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

Don't you tire of posting the same graph?

You get no response with it, why don't you try something new?

Like show the members how sea level is rising or something?

Oh, are you saying that you accept man-made climate change now?



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

Don't you tire of posting the same graph?

You get no response with it, why don't you try something new?

Like show the members how sea level is rising or something?

Oh, are you saying that you accept man-made climate change now?
When have I denied it?



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
Okay, so what's wrong with challenging those who do not?



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
CO2 does not cause heating. If anything, CO2 causes cooling. Do you know what fire extinguishers are made of? Fire extinguishers are made of CO2.


Fires require fuel and oxygen. CO2 fire extinguishers drown the fire and starve it of oxygen. It doesn't cool the fire.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee
Okay, so what's wrong with challenging those who do not?


Nobody knows whether the ~ 0.5°C warming of the 21st century is 100% natural and just a continuance of the warming of previous two centuries, or whether some or all of of the warming is due to humans.

Debate is good.

I found this article interesting. We are having a very late spring in the region I am in.
Link



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

What natural variation would cause warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere?



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven
Net temperatures in the stratosphere have remained essentially unchanged since the late 1990s.

Ozone and volcanoes play a role along with C02.

Climate dot gov link


edit on 1-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
You'll note that the peaks come about due to volcanoes, and that the troughs following the peaks are close to where things would have been without the eruptions. This is a rather consistent and substantial overall trend of cooling.

Further, UAH Lower Stratosphere v. 6.0 shows a declining trend of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade - starting in 1979. The last time the anomaly was positive, on a 1981-2010 baseline, was 2001 (0.0).

I will agree that the trend has been fairly flat since 1995 (parsed from UAH data above):
Year average departure:
1995: -0.280833 σ=0.104838
1996: -0.3925 σ=0.0774731
1997: -0.2825 σ=0.125241
1998: -0.258333 σ=0.103347
1999: -0.279167 σ=0.170902
2000: -0.351667 σ=0.201281
2001: -0.185 σ=0.139851
2002: -0.128333 σ=0.0789339
2003: -0.198333 σ=0.125554
2004: -0.255 σ=0.125399
2005: -0.3725 σ=0.13959
2006: -0.378333 σ=0.14988
2007: -0.389167 σ=0.107429
2008: -0.456667 σ=0.0528099
2009: -0.3725 σ=0.122279
2010: -0.245 σ=0.116154
2011: -0.408333 σ=0.159051
2012: -0.475833 σ=0.0889249
2013: -0.279167 σ=0.103236
2014: -0.283333 σ=0.125588
2015: -0.259167 σ=0.0811848
2016: -0.53 σ=0.173686
Year linear Regression:
Slope : -0.00573405

However, recall that something rather important happened - the realization that we were destroying the ozone layer - and the subsequent actions to curtail that destruction.

Due to the reduction in ozone-depleting emissions, ozone has increased while stratospheric temperatures have not. Ozone should be warming the stratosphere, but that doesn't seem to be happening.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Is there a percentage number that can be put on C02's contribution to the greenhouse effect?



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

How long does water vapor stick around in the air?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join