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.

 

20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

page: 11
94
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

That's a different story. There is no product out there that exclusively generates C0 as a final product (unless some government uses it as a chemical weapon). CO is a waste product generated by automobiles. C02 generators generate C02 as a final product to aid in plant growth.




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: mersaultdies
a reply to: Justoneman


You have argued against the idea of man-made carbon release being responsible and suggested that the sun is responsible. But what you haven't done it answered Phage's earlier question about what evidence you use to suggest a correlation between the sun and climate change.




To address your very good question about the long chain hydrocarbons for fuel issue I forgot to answer in my reply, Those are natural occurring and as such the Earth has mechanism in place from the beginning that consume or release them that may be cyclical too. Volcano's will certainly spew whatever is there in the Earth' crust. There are bacteria that eat them and convert them back to bio mass.

ETA

Oh i did address Phage's question just not to his satisfaction.... But he is not the God of all things ATS. As many have proven about him, he is opinionated against the tide of evidence at this point. Logic is not his strong suit. However, Astrophysics is I will grant him. Many here can't let logic get in the way of his arguments but I will continue because logic doesn't escape all of you.
edit on 4-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Of course Earth cycles exist. Please don't whine when the gubmint taxes you to build gigantic sea walls around the major cities, or complain when the water table dries up, forcing food prices to skyrocket.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Justoneman

Of course Earth cycles exist. Please don't whine when the gubmint taxes you to build gigantic sea walls around the major cities, or complain when the water table dries up, forcing food prices to skyrocket.


NO offense but you don't understand how molecules work if you think water on Earth will dry up. The water in the desert that we pump to make food might dry up, but water itself will always be abundant.

Water for food will always be an issue and always has. In fact the wheat belt has been dealing with that since they 1st farmers. Locations like the mountains can't grow food as well but certainly we have water constraints when we move to a dry area. I have no fear of water for crops. I fear idiots believing lies who may become irrational doing things to destroy property and lives. So far the antifa types are also the man made global warming believers in my estimation. The 'science' rally shows me how concerned they are when they trash the place and pretend they are concerned that money for science to spend finding ways to protect them from mother nature is in danger when their true motive appears dissent for dissent's sake.
edit on 4-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Many factors influence climate. It may be that carbon affects it, and that it is also being affected by sun and earth cycles. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Of course this makes correlation difficult when you can't isolate for a single variable, and you have other variables that have unknown relationships to each other.

The carbon tax people are definitely just pushing the climate change agenda as part of the largest cash scheme in history, and with it a way to fund globalist control. This doesn't mean that carbon is or isn't a factor in global warming though. Once they had the idea, they would push the agenda, and it really wouldn't matter if it was real or wasn't.

I think it's a good idea to get off fossil fuels even if they aren't causing any global warming at all. If nothing else, to reduce the geopolitical tension it causes, to reduce the other environmental impacts it has, and because they are a limited resource. They will run out at some point. Better to get most things switched to renewables now.
edit on 4-5-2017 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
I have been putting this type of thought out there for years on ATS. Here is a chance to learn for yourselves about true science doing research you can read for yourself and get the 'skinny' on what is driving our climate, really.


principia-scientific.org...



As for your Link "Principia Scientific.org"



O'Sullivan has been promoting this book and himself, his other writings, his fascade company called Principia Scientific International, and

soliciting public donations through false professional and academic credentials.

He is falsely claiming to be a lawyer who has "successfully litigated for more than 13 years in New York and Federal 2nd District courts,"
a member of the American Bar Association,
a legal consultant employed by the British Columbia law firm Pearlman Lindholm,
and a science journalist with more than 150 major articles published worldwide including in National Review and Forbes magazines.

None of those claims are true.

www.aaskolnick.com...

Tons of other resources explaining the false and not credible denial campaign of "Principia-scientific.org" and it's founder.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

wow, because something is naturally produced means that its all fine and well... sorry but that is the most simplistic and flawed argument iv ever heard. Not everything that is naturally occurring is taken care of by the environment...

Uranium is naturally occurring but Humans extract it, and concentrate it... there is no natural mechanism for processing and making safe a chunk of Uranium.

Oil naturally occurs due to very long bio-geological mechanisms... the amount of it that burns and ultimately produces CO2 naturally in nature is not THAT high... We Humans, extract it, refine it and burn it at a far higher rate than nature does...

it is naive and rather ignorant and arrogant to state, matter of fact, ignoring deforestation etc, that this has 'no affect' It just proves that your tome as an Environmentalist is a little bit... unscientific speaking as a professional scientist



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

And that site that lists the 20 papers?

Not only is it a known fraud...

But he fudged the very first paper graphic...

He shows it as solar activity...
principia-scientific.org...

the actual paper shows the same graph...but it graphs crop yields..nothing about solar activity variance?

journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc...

THAT is just the first paper...What a ton of BS...



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

“Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.”

And even the fish ran out of Oxygen .

Take a deep breath



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Justoneman

wow, because something is naturally produced means that its all fine and well... sorry but that is the most simplistic and flawed argument iv ever heard. Not everything that is naturally occurring is taken care of by the environment...

Uranium is naturally occurring but Humans extract it, and concentrate it... there is no natural mechanism for processing and making safe a chunk of Uranium.

Oil naturally occurs due to very long bio-geological mechanisms... the amount of it that burns and ultimately produces CO2 naturally in nature is not THAT high... We Humans, extract it, refine it and burn it at a far higher rate than nature does...

it is naive and rather ignorant and arrogant to state, matter of fact, ignoring deforestation etc, that this has 'no affect' It just proves that your tome as an Environmentalist is a little bit... unscientific speaking as a professional scientist



Believe the tripe, Einstein himself will not be able to change the minds of those who will not see.

It matters not to you about the facts that the Earth heals easily? We are the ones who don't heal easily. I am sorry you won't to believe the lie. Many on ATS and I have offered sound research to support my theory. THE MAGNETIC POLES are shifting and for the 1st time in our existence we can tell that is moving and can plot the changes.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Justoneman

And that site that lists the 20 papers?

Not only is it a known fraud...

But he fudged the very first paper graphic...

He shows it as solar activity...
principia-scientific.org...

the actual paper shows the same graph...but it graphs crop yields..nothing about solar activity variance?

journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc...

THAT is just the first paper...What a ton of BS...



It is impossible to convince a someone once they have bought into the snake oil salesmen's pitch. Carry on and we will see your kind continue to lose the war of facts. The facts speak for themselves and picking bad facts like IPP has been caught doing, is blatant BS. You support blatant BS, admit it and we can work to solve the pollution I repeatedly reminded dissenters of my theory throughout this thread. Don't admit it and the rhetoric from the falsified papers from the IPP gets worse because you emboldened the enemy of truth and the scientific method.

I have shared links among this thread where the authors credited FROM within the IPP say they didn't sanction their data for the lies to paraphrase. Plus, the IPP did use the bastardized version of their research and worse CLAIMED the researchers agreed when they patently DID NOT! What did you say about it???? .......crickets......... Because, either you didn't read it or don't give a damn......You can make that call. We already have a feeling on which it is.


I will continue to defend the Scientific method and bring you papers from the real experts since you wish to ignore their existence, fighting tooth and nail to save your paradigm.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: 2hooitconcerns
a reply to: Justoneman

“Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.”

And even the fish ran out of Oxygen .

Take a deep breath


My suspicion for the drop in O2 goes like this, we have material entering the atmosphere making the Earth bigger and the basic same amount of O2 having to cover more area. Throw in our pollution that absorbs the O2 and we can see that report being believable you've presented.

I certainly wish to fight pollution but we can't call CO2 pollution. I want Hydrogen power and safe Nuclear reactors and wind power but no way can I buy the CO2 BS the 'scientists' working for the UN are giving me. They are alienating our population and doubling down on their lies. The backlash is inevitable.
edit on 4-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Ah you are an expanding earth believer too... awesome...

Go science

You offered me no evidence or credible scientific rebuttal other than to call me an idiot... you also completely ignored my previous post, soooo yeah... sorry but you accuse scientists of being sold a lie and being to blind to see the truth. From where I sit, you are too arrogant and also ignorant to admit or even think that the statements you make are anything other than the truth...

I am a PhD in Physics, half of what you say is just... its so full of padding and conjecture exerting confidence that it is hard to see where your understanding ends and the blag starts. You have made logically incorrect statements about very basic scientific knowledge and yet appear to tell us that we are somehow wrong about more complex systems when you display a lack of understanding about basic ones.

To make the statement that increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by a ballpark value of 160%, which is roughly 30% higher than it has been at its various peaks for the last half a million years or so... to state that "Meh, its not a problem" is just absurd. Coupled with the massive amounts of deforestation which in terms of chemical conversion means the planet has a less efficient mechanism for removal. The oceans can hold lots of CO2 (and O2 for that matter) but again, it is highly dependant upon temperature itself.
Water in the atmosphere absorbs much of the radiance of the earths black body spectrum beyond about 15-20microns it is a steady rise, it keeps us nice and stable (ish) temperature wise. Carbon dioxide has a nice fat peak at about 15 microns that about 6-7 micros full width half max... this peak increases the absorption of energy in the atmosphere that would otherwise not be absorbed.

So where does that energy go? Does it stay in the atmosphere? or is it lost?

Our objection to your statements is that the papers I have read claiming CO2 is not a problem are wildly innacurate in many assumptions. Iv read and seen a whole bunch of stuff showing the unmodified emission spectrum of the Earth, not showing what the water content of the atmopshere does to it, which makes CO2 thus look insignificant, all in a way to suggest... hey look the area under the curve is small... thus not a problem. When it isn't presenting the facts that, things we cannot control very well such as atmospheric water already beat down most of that black body curve to zero, leaving a gap around 7 to 17 microns.... meaning the increase of absorption is actually changing the relative transmission by a fair amount.


You have not discussed anyones points, you have simply sat back and made large swathing statements without any kind of backup, called people idiots and shills as though you are some prophet of truth. Sorry but... if you was wanting expecting a bunch of nodding yes men/women... I am happy to dissapoint you.

Do I think this post will have any influence on you? No, much like you claim we are too long gone, the issue is not that we are closed minded, more that it appears you have been under a tinfoil hat too long. Convinced that you are right... i dunno... maybe goaded on by Trump being elected giving you the confidence to say "Hey look, he believes the same, so i must be right!"

Sorry but... no... just no... based on your evidence



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


NO offense but you don't understand how molecules work if you think water on Earth will dry up. The water in the desert that we pump to make food might dry up, but water itself will always be abundant.


Intended offense taken and returned: Reading comprehension issues, I see. I did not say the water would go away; in fact, I suggested oceans and inland seas might begin to rise. What I described was a redistribution of water resources. This has happened before thanks to poor resource management. Wars have been fought over it. Why do you find it necessary to pair making your arguments with personal attacks?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Then there is the strange behaviour of our Sun. Declining solar activity linked to recent warming The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years. Quirin Schiermeier An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle. Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1. The study period covers the declining phase of the current solar cycle. Solar activity, which in the current cycle peaked around 2001, reached a pronounced minimum in late 2009 during which no sunspots were observed for an unusually long period. ... Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period. ...


Here you are referencing work that supports the DECREASE of solar activity warming earth.

If this is the case, then why did the INCREASE of solar activity prior to that also warm earth during the 20th century?

Perhaps the increase in carbon in the atmosphere makes more sense as the primary driver of climate change?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Kashai


Actually what is ridiculous is about 2 hrs. ago I asked for specific data to support such a position and I am still getting this "song and dance".


I find it more ridiculous that you are responding to yourself.

Anyway, if CO2 was the cause of the warming, then why is it that from 1898-1998 CO2 levels increased by 79ppm and temperatures increased by ~0.8 C. Yet from 1998-2016 atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 39PPM in 18 years but global temperatures only increased by ~0.1 C?

If CO2 was the cause of the warming and an increase in CO2 levels from 1898-1998 was 79ppm causing supposedly a global temperature increase of ~0.8. Then the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels of 39ppm from 1998-2016 should have increased temperatures by at least ~0.4, yet it did not.

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



The people who recognise the link between carbon and climate change generally admit that it is not the only factor. Climate change is undoubtedly influenced by a variety of factors and many people have admitted that solar activity is one.

Your point above appears to ignore that earlier in the thread you drew attention to some research explaining how solar activity had declined since 2001. Perhaps this decrease mitigates somewhat the rise in temperature through carbon increase. Or is this too logical?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: mersaultdies

It should be noted that 1998 was a very strong El Nino year. Using it as a starting point might be considered cherry picking.
Try using 1997, or 1999.


edit on 5/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Justoneman




New findings suggest the rate at which CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere has plateaued in recent years because Earth’s vegetation is grabbing more carbon from the air than in previous decades.

That’s the conclusion of a multi-institutional study led by a scientist from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). It’s based on extensive ground and atmospheric observations of CO2, satellite measurements of vegetation, and computer modeling. The research is published online Nov. 8 in the journal Nature Communications.

newscenter.lbl.gov...


1. This lab and this particular study are both funded by the US government DofE. Does the US government ever have an agenda it wants pushed...

2. The study itself admits that carbon is still increasingly building up in the atmosphere. The only thing that has changed is the RATE. If I continue to drink alcohol, but at a slower rate than I usually do, I still get drunk (and start losing at Fifa!).



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358

The other point to make is that many papers on climate change actually ignore the output variations of the Sun.
False. Solar output is critical to radiative forcing calculations and is closely studied.

Of course changes in climate would be driven by changes in solar output. That doesn't mean that changes in solar output are the only thing that affect climate (which a number of the articles cited in the OP make clear). The thing is, solar output has not changed much in the past 50 years (actually declining a bit) while global temperatures continue to rise.
lasp.colorado.edu...


Yes, the Sun affects climate. Of course. So, what has changed about the Sun to account for the warming trend we are seeing?


That's a really nice graph. Looks like we're on the downhill slide. Are those ground or air measurements?

Oh wait, those can't be satellite... we didn't have those in orbit in the 1800s. So this is earth-based monitoring, which we know is skewed in the last 50+ years by urbanization. Moving on.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mersaultdies

It should be noted that 1998 was a very strong El Nino year. Using it as a starting point might be considered cherry picking.
Try using 1997, or 1999.



ElectricUniverse: To ensure that you aren't cherry picking dates why don't you take an average of the (average) temps from years around your start and finish points. That would ensure that your results are less skewed.

For 1898 do you know the temps for 5 years either way?
The same for 1998?

That way the strong EN mentioned won't be responsible and you want to present an accurate picture, right?

Or even, change the years of your first comparison from 1897-1997 or something else analogous?

Can't wait to see your findings.



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join