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: 9
94
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Kashai




Earth still absorbing about half carbon dioxide emissions produced by people: study

Link


I see that link has several studies that should make Kashai happy. IF he wants to know where to find the answers that is there are all kinds of references to check out up and down this thread.
edit on 3-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere mainly by fossil fuel combustion but also by forest fires and some natural processes. The gas can also be pulled out of the atmosphere into the tissues of growing plants or absorbed by the waters of Earth's oceans. A series of recent studies suggested that natural sinks of carbon dioxide might no longer be keeping up with the increasing rate of emissions. If that were to happen, it would cause a faster-than-expected rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and projected climate change impacts. Ballantine, Tans and their colleagues saw no faster-than-expected rise, however. Their estimate showed that overall, oceans and natural ecosystems continue to pull about half of people's carbon dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere. Since emissions of CO2 have increased substantially since 1960, Ballantyne said, "Earth is taking up twice as much CO2 today as it was 50 years ago."

The rest continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, where it is likely to accelerate global warming.



Read more at: phys.org...

What exactly is your point?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Fukushima was the result of under - regulation and a horribly unsafe back up generator design.

This is not the case in America as nuclear plants are highly regulated and are designed to avoid the same mistakes made in Japan. Resulting in nuclear plants that are as safe as any coal plant that is spewing out radioactive smoke 24/7. Not to mention coal waste cannot be recycled, can now be dumped into our fresh water sources (thanks Trump), and is extremely toxic.

Thorium fuel requires at least 10% uranium in order to be fissile. Thorium reactors can recycle uranium from our current nuclear waste stores. thorium also creates uranium during the energy creation process, which can be recycled and used with the thorium again. Thorium produces very little of the highly radioactive element plutonium. Thorium has a much higher melting point and I do believe there are plans to get a new type of molten salt reactor online that cannot melt down All of which means safe and clean nuclear power



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

So you completely dismiss the findings by the Max Planck institute and Richard Wilson who has been NASA's principal investigator on ACRIM?...

Again.



The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years
...
October 28, 2004
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. 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.
...

www.mpg.de...

The above research is from 2004. Here is a graph of the data from the above link.



Here is more data corroborating this increase in solar activity from Richard Wilson, who has been the principal investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments. He found in a study he conducted covering 24 years of data, from 1978-2002, that solar activity had been increasing in times of quiet sunspot activity by 0.05% per decade, and that if this trend occurred for 100 years it would cause significant climate change.


NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Mar. 20, 2003

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.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

The sun's strange behaviour in which visible light reaching Earth from the sun increased, and warmed the Earth's troposphere even when other solar activity had lowered started years, actually over a decade after the findings of the above two sources.

edit on 3-5-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Point is it's not all bad.


Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Link



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



"The uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and by ecosystems is expected to slow down gradually," Tans said. Oceans, for example, are already becoming more acidic as they absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide pumped into the air by human activities. "As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans," Tans said. "We just don't see a letup, globally, yet.


Read more at: phys.org...


No data to support your position.

Our are you considering the "Yet" part as evidence?


I mean if you fill a cup with water its going to eventfully overflow, if you keep poring. I makes very little sense to consider otherwise.

Nothing you have stated thus far or the data your providing proves that somehow common sense has somehow been violated.

Where is your evidence?
Our is the "yet" part something you find profound?
edit on 3-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: conscientiousobserver


Resulting in nuclear plants that are as safe as any coal plant that is spewing out radioactive smoke 24/7.
I would hope that there are built with more safety in mind than a coal plant.
If a coal plant were to suffer damage in an earthquake, it's not a big deal really, can the same be said about Nuclear generating stations?



The last nuclear power plant remaining in the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) could be a potential disaster because of its Fukushima-like boiling water reactor.

It’s located near the Columbia river along the Cascadia subduction zone, acknowledged by the Washington State Department as capable of producing “some of the largest and most damaging earthquakes in the world.”

A 2013 Seattle Times report quoted a geologist working with the Physicians for Social Responsibility as saying the plant had not undergone structural upgrades since its opening in 1984.




The Empire State’s Indian Point is considered by many to be the next Fukushima.

Not only has the plant been plagued with operational problems, but it is situated almost on top of the Rampano fault line.

A study by Columbia University in 2008 suggested the New York area was at greater risk of high-magnitude earthquakes than first thought, with the discovery of a new potential disaster area, the Stamfrod-Peekskill line



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


"The uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and by ecosystems is expected to slow down gradually," Tans said. Oceans, for example, are already becoming more acidic as they absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide pumped into the air by human activities. "As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans," Tans said. "We just don't see a letup, globally, yet.









Right now our evidence for willful ignorance is pretty high. Our certainty factor is high on that one.
edit on 3-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


To be clear gravity keeps all the gasses produced on earth in our atmosphere. You have stated there is a "mechanism" that renders those gasses irrelevant to the atmosphere.


So essentially my question to you is what has happened to those gassed that result in them being a null hypothesis to the conclusion they are heating up our atmosphere??


I have asked you to provide said data to that effect.


As far as mechanisms that could make that possible in nature there are none.


If you suggesting scientist are missing something it apparent you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Again no offence its just obvious that this is the case.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai


To be clear gravity keeps all the gasses produced on earth in our atmosphere. You have stated there is a "mechanism" that renders those gasses irrelevant to the atmosphere.
Of course there are ways to move C02 out of the atmosphere, to say anything else is ridiculous.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Explain that to Venus.



Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods refers to a number of technologies which reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[1] Among such technologies are bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, direct air capture, ocean fertilization and enhanced weathering.[1] CDR is a different approach than removing CO2 from the stack emissions of large fossil fuel point sources, such as power stations. The latter reduces emission to the atmosphere but cannot reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. As CDR removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it creates negative emissions, offsetting emissions from small and dispersed point sources such as domestic heating systems, airplanes and vehicle exhausts.[2][3] It is regarded by some as a form of climate engineering,[1] while other commentators describe it as a form of carbon capture and storage or extreme mitigation.[4]

Whether CDR would satisfy common definitions of "climate engineering" or "geoengineering" usually depends upon the scale on which it would be undertaken.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
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".



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


To be clear gravity keeps all the gasses produced on earth in our atmosphere. You have stated there is a "mechanism" that renders those gasses irrelevant to the atmosphere.


So essentially my question to you is what has happened to those gassed that result in them being a null hypothesis to the conclusion they are heating up our atmosphere??


I have asked you to provide said data to that effect.


As far as mechanisms that could make that possible in nature there are none.


If you suggesting scientist are missing something it apparent you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Again no offence its just obvious that this is the case.




You appear to be not wanting to see what i have stated. THe Sun IS the problem. CO2 meh.. Proof was submitted all over this thread that the theory is better than 150 years of CO2 upticking from rock bottom in our atmosphere.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai


Explain that to Venus.

Venus told me a couple things.

One, it doesn't have any photosynthesis going on.

Two, it don't have any oceans.

Like are you for real in thinking that C02 all stays in the atmosphere?

Please tell me you are joking.



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 gave you a couple links which shows how Carbon moves around in the cycle.

If you don't want to read them thats beyond my control.

It's called 'the carbon cycle' if you wish to pursue it further someday.


edit on 3-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



You said there was a "mechanism" that allowed for us not to worry about human intervention to the atmosphere due to pollution.

That is what you stated in fact!!

You stated in plain English...

"Ok, how about you consider that most of the chemicals that man makes are possible in nature, not all granted. The earth "has a mechanism for absorbing these back and the real issue for our environment IMHO is trashing the forests for profit and spewing various sewage and effluent streams into our water to the point the wildlife is strangled. We should focus on that and quit playing around with the idiots spouting AGW. We are wasting our good fortune of having the attention of the masses"


Where is the data that supports what you have wanted me to see??








edit on 3-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Plants scrub co2 out of the atmosphere. What data would you like to prove that?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor


So where is your data to support that nature deals with the problem?

Ladies and Gentlemen this is a Science and Technology Forum.


Not an, "oh based upon the idea that I have been told some idea is correct in relation to science it must be true, because 9 out of 10 scientist agree Forum.

And again where is your data?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Data for what exactly? That plants use co2 to produce oxygen through photosynthesis?

I think the underlying issue is your emotional involvement into something that should be purely scientific.

The problem is not over fossil fuel usage, the problem is overpopulation. The global impact equation is based on population, technology, and affluence; your focus is on one variable.

A global population of 500 million people would alleviate any and all concerns over co2 output.

This is an internet forum, not a science panel; you are too emotionally involved for me to bother with providing data.

Anyways, when you calm down I'll give you more:

Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

"The relative contributions of the different processes involved in the terrestrial sink enhancement remain unquantified."


Unquantified and definition:

not expressed or measured in terms of quantity:

www.merriam-webster.com...

So I can provide you with Unquantified data that presents that when just before it rains my left toe itches.












edit on 4-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join