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: 16
94
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I notice from your post you indicate C02 levels have been as low as 170 ppm in the past.

Can you tell me at what level plant life will cease to exist?


edit on 6-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



Definitely 0 CO2 levels but of the cuff so to speak once down to about 50 to 70 definitely a substantive decline. I read some research back in the 90s that presented, if we converted the Brazilian and African forest into farmland and cities?

There could be a problem with Oxygen levels world wide.


edit on 6-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai
Below 150 ppm, plant-life dies off on a massive scale. The Earth actually came very close to that point many times over the last 2 million years during the ice ages. At the bottom of the last ice age just 20,000 years ago, life on the planet literally teetered on the brink when CO2 fell to a level of just 180 ppm.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


At those levels a very real threat exists to the food chain.


But just as it is possible for animal life to exist under conditions of living on the surface of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Plants which include One Celled Versions would be able to survive at much lower levels.




edit on 6-5-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai


Definitely 0 CO2 levels but of the cuff so to speak once down to about 50 to 70 definitely a substantive decline.
Can you clarify?

You want C02 levels down to 50 -70 ppm?

Say goodbye to life as we know it.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Of course no but even at those levels plants would still survive.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


Of course no but even at those levels plants would still survive.

C02 levels go to 50 ppm you'll have the largest extinction level event this planet has ever seen, it's not really debatable, it's just the reality of it.

I think that some are so convinced that C02 is an evil pollutant they would advocate for this.

What a mixed up world we are in.
edit on 6-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


The worst recorded extinction event on Earth as the "Permian–Triassic extinction event"...



The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr or P–T) extinction event, colloquially known as the Great Dying,[2] the End-Permian Extinction or the Great Permian Extinction,[3][4] occurred about 252 Ma (million years) ago,[5] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods, as well as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[6][7] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[8] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[9][10] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[6] possibly up to 10 million years,[11] although studies in Bear Lake County near the Idaho city of Paris showed a quick and dynamic rebound in a marine ecosystem, illustrating the remarkable resiliency of life.[12]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


Of course no but even at those levels plants would still survive.

C02 levels go to 50 ppm you'll have the largest extinction level event this planet has ever seen, it's not really debatable, it's just the reality of it.

I think that some are so convinced that C02 is an evil pollutant they would advocate for this.

What a mixed up world we are in.


i hate how it distracts from other possible sources like methane and nitrous oxide. maybe cause it doesnt fully fall in line with the agenda against big oil, who knows.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


Of course no but even at those levels plants would still survive.

C02 levels go to 50 ppm you'll have the largest extinction level event this planet has ever seen, it's not really debatable, it's just the reality of it.

I think that some are so convinced that C02 is an evil pollutant they would advocate for this.

What a mixed up world we are in.


i hate how it distracts from other possible sources like methane and nitrous oxide. maybe cause it doesnt fully fall in line with the agenda against big oil, who knows.


Methane is getting some attention, if it can be taxed, it's on the list!


Tax meat and dairy to cut emissions and save lives, study urges

Surcharges of 40% on beef and 20% on milk would account for the damage their production causes people via climate change, an Oxford University team has calculated. These taxes would then deter people from consuming as much of these foods, reducing both emissions and illness, the team said.


Link



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


Of course no but even at those levels plants would still survive.

C02 levels go to 50 ppm you'll have the largest extinction level event this planet has ever seen, it's not really debatable, it's just the reality of it.

I think that some are so convinced that C02 is an evil pollutant they would advocate for this.

What a mixed up world we are in.


i hate how it distracts from other possible sources like methane and nitrous oxide. maybe cause it doesnt fully fall in line with the agenda against big oil, who knows.


The positive feedback of methane release in the melting permafrost is mentioned by those who question the current estimates of the extent of possible change.
edit on 6-5-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


Of course no but even at those levels plants would still survive.

C02 levels go to 50 ppm you'll have the largest extinction level event this planet has ever seen, it's not really debatable, it's just the reality of it.

I think that some are so convinced that C02 is an evil pollutant they would advocate for this.

What a mixed up world we are in.


i hate how it distracts from other possible sources like methane and nitrous oxide. maybe cause it doesnt fully fall in line with the agenda against big oil, who knows.


Methane is getting some attention, if it can be taxed, it's on the list!


Tax meat and dairy to cut emissions and save lives, study urges

Surcharges of 40% on beef and 20% on milk would account for the damage their production causes people via climate change, an Oxford University team has calculated. These taxes would then deter people from consuming as much of these foods, reducing both emissions and illness, the team said.


Link




im not sure if i agree with that idea. i get where their going with it but it seems more like a way to dictate our lives even further. i can see how that would mostly impact the poor. id like to know more on how theyd help people benefit their diets and such. either through vouchers for alternative sources of food etc. without seeing exactly how theyd implement that i cant really say if im for it or against it. i was kinda shocked by how low the tax was on pork though when it has a pretty significant impact on the environment aswell. its an interesting idea though and im willing to be opened minded and support it if the tax revenue actually does go towards feeding people and reducing the costs in other areas. i could see other issues arising aswell. as the sales decrease so does tax revenue and u may just tax yourself out of being able to provide those other services to the people who can no longer afford to buy beef.
edit on 7-5-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears


In context to the topic and in relation to survival in general?



Can tardigrades survive on Mars?

There - possible habitats include the warm seasonal flows - if there is enough water flows there - or the droplets on salt / ice interfaces - or subsurface deliquescing salts which may be a few mms thick, or salt towers - or the flow like features in the upper lattitudes near the poles where water may melt below the surface of clear ice if they have the equivalent of Antarctic "blue ice" on Mars. Some of those melt water habitats, if they exist, could be at 0C below an overlying layer of ice in the solid greenhouse effect and could be up to tens of cms thick in some of the models in the most ideal situation, immediately above a layer of rock that absorbs heat from the sun (that is, if this Martian equivalent of blue ice exists, which is not yet known).

There's also the chance of hydrothermal features sustained by geothermal heating from below.

Could they survive in any of these places? It seems a huge challenge even for them. But is it impossible?



www.quora.com...

In a manner of speaking Tardigrades redefine dormancy in multicellular lifeforms.

edit on 7-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Out of curiosity can you get real specific as to how to you reality is organized?



Not to your satisfaction I am certain......


Have you at least learnt the difference between weather and climate yet?


Well in my case i have always known the difference... Your implication is insulting.


I would add that my generation was taught correctly, that the Earth is affected by the Sun both in above ground weather and geological affects (considered weather also by some scientists). The volcanism (spell checker on ATS doesn't have this word) appears to be affected by objects in the Solar system and therefore, cooling occurs. It might very well be that the cycles we have documented from geological study is related to other bigger cycles.....



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Out of curiosity can you get real specific as to how to you reality is organized?



Not to your satisfaction I am certain......


Have you at least learnt the difference between weather and climate yet?

Weather models differ from climate models in that they have to work and are verified every hour of every day around the planet. If a weather model is broken, it becomes obvious immediately. By contrast, climate modelers have the advantage that they will be long since retired when their predictions don’t come to pass.


And if the Climate models that we have had failed to produce one accurate prediction, then we have a failed model, period. The facts are those presenting the data from the failed models failed to adapt a new theory. Meanwhile any scientist not agreeing to approve the failed models is being shamed by the likes of Dr. Tyson, Bill Nye who both want debate the Climate Scientists who study and present differing opinions, and the MSM. That appears to be the reality we live in.
edit on 7-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee




summitcountyvoice.com...











This one is a fine example of why we can't trust the IPP models. Thank you for this example.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


Of course no but even at those levels plants would still survive.

C02 levels go to 50 ppm you'll have the largest extinction level event this planet has ever seen, it's not really debatable, it's just the reality of it.

I think that some are so convinced that C02 is an evil pollutant they would advocate for this.

What a mixed up world we are in.


The cynic in me feels that the real goal from some elite group pushing us around is to stop plant life, starve mankind out, and have the place to themselves. You know us "useless eaters" who were called a "virus on the earth".

www.dailymotion.com...

www.youtube.com...

ETA

www.propagandamatrix.com...

edit on 7-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Out of curiosity can you get real specific as to how to you reality is organized?



Not to your satisfaction I am certain......


Have you at least learnt the difference between weather and climate yet?


Well in my case i have always known the difference... Your implication is insulting


What a load of nonsense. You literally confused the two a couple of pages back.

Face it, you got caught making basic mistakes that no scientist, let alone an environmental scientist, would ever make. What does that tell us?



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Tells us he was taught correctly apparently
Its just a standard issue "I am always right, follow me and my ideas as if I were a biblical prophet!" ego trip from what I can tell... So far the big mistakes iv counted are

Confusing weather and climate
Confusing electrostatics with magnetics
Cherry picking data and confirmation bias
Apparently believing in astrology at some level... maybe



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join