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.

 

NASA Pinpoints Cause of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I understand now.

You've got a bad case of "denial denial".




posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

A new NASA study provides space-based evidence that Earth’s tropical regions were the cause of the largest annual increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration seen in at least 2,000 years. Scientists suspected the 2015-16 El Nino -- one of the largest on record -- was responsible, but exactly how has been a subject of ongoing research. Analyzing the first 28 months of data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite, researchers conclude impacts of El Nino-related heat and drought occurring in tropical regions of South America, Africa and Indonesia were responsible for the record spike in global carbon dioxide. The findings are published in the journal Science Friday as part of a collection of five research papers based on OCO-2 data.

www.nasa.gov...

It's things like that that make me pause a bit when I'm told things like "the science is settled". here we are in the year 2017, with fears of looming death of the planet due to man's destructive habits, and natural causes have been laughed out of the equation by most, then this pops up. Where it seems a very natural occurrence "El Ninio" had made a very large contribution to the C02 emissions.

I realize this does nothing to disprove AGW, it's just a small tidbit of information, but the question now becomes, was this factored into the models, and if not, why? (yes the answer is kind of a trick)


One thing I never see referenced into these reports is the sun cycles and how the sun contributes. Are they just assuming a constant and stable sun? Because that's laughable.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: WhyDidIJoin




Are they just assuming a constant and stable sun?
No.
In fact, the output of the Sun is measured on an ongoing basis.
lasp.colorado.edu...

It hasn't changed enough to account for the warming. In fact, it's been decreasing lately. But not very much.


edit on 10/14/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
i have a hard time taking that study seriously when they themselves are clearly trying to manipulate the reader, albeit subtly, into reaching a similar conclusion. when they stated that prior to the industrial revolution we had a certain amount of co2 in the atmosphere without mentioning that its varied widely throughout the eons on earth, everyone should have questioned the rest of the article.the nail in the coffin for me was the 2nd to last paragraph. they always gotta push some agenda when that should be the one thing missing from scientific reports. in the end im not sure what point they are trying to reach. it kinda flounders when it brings up the fires which doesnt mention if they are man made or natural which accounted for a vast amount of the co2 from some of the areas. while another area didnt have those conditions yet also produced about the same amount. so im not even sure if they pinpointed anything
edit on 14-10-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Well, it's clear that they are going to blame us and start carbon taxing us for it. To all smokers out there that are Liberal? Just know, that your Liberal elites are going to be particularly punishing to anyone that smokes or vapes. Something to think about the next time you vote.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lurker1

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: network dude

......also, there are limits to the amount of carbon-dioxide that can be absorbed by plant life, once they reach that amount, they can no longer absorb more....but, you would know that too, if you took a science class, or bothered to do some research



LMAO

Yeah, there's that lack of education again. Thanks for your post though because the fact that plants have a limited CO2 uptake was not taught at the time I went to HS.

I appreciate the new information.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0x6372756d6273
a reply to: network dude

I understand now.

You've got a bad case of "denial denial".


so any questioning of AGW is "denial"? And you wonder why I think you are in a cult.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: 0x6372756d6273
a reply to: network dude

I understand now.

You've got a bad case of "denial denial".


so any questioning of AGW is "denial"? And you wonder why I think you are in a cult.


Sounds much like fundies claiming atheists follow a religion, desperate.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Garmanarnar

Pretty much if you accept the science behind human induced climate change, there are many on here who will say you are following a cult or refer to it as a religion.

It is kind of sad.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Garmanarnar

Pretty much if you accept the science behind human induced climate change, there are many on here who will say you are following a cult or refer to it as a religion.

It is kind of sad.


What's sad is not being able to question the narrative. Did they give you black nike's?



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Garmanarnar

Pretty much if you accept the science behind human induced climate change, there are many on here who will say you are following a cult or refer to it as a religion.

It is kind of sad.


What's sad is not being able to question the narrative. Did they give you black nike's?

What are you questioning, exactly?

That we are emitting the majority of CO2? If so, perhaps you missed this post on the prior page.

e: Hm, this might be unclear; by majority I mean the increase in CO2 levels. It's easy enough to calculate like I have in that post.
edit on 11Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:09:34 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




a very natural occurrence "El Ninio"


I'd doubt that it's a natural occurrence and not a reaction to the rising temperatures. Thus your whole point is moot. Global warming can cause more global warming via extreme weather events like el nino or la nina.

No. Yes. D'oh!

edit on 15-10-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
oh know carbon dioxide it will kill of plant life we all going to die. ok now that the hysteria gone grab a cold one and chill. fun fact plants love a higher amount of co2 . have we reached a toxic amount in atmo yet nope no where close to it. besides according to facebook yellowstone about to blow am sure if that happens carbon emmission will be least of our problems.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Garmanarnar

Pretty much if you accept the science behind human induced climate change, there are many on here who will say you are following a cult or refer to it as a religion.

It is kind of sad.


What's sad is not being able to question the narrative. Did they give you black nike's?

What are you questioning, exactly?

That we are emitting the majority of CO2? If so, perhaps you missed this post on the prior page.

e: Hm, this might be unclear; by majority I mean the increase in CO2 levels. It's easy enough to calculate like I have in that post.


evidence would suggest from nasa's very own satellite's, evidence from ice cores and rock samples from around the earth that we are far from reaching the limit of co2 the earth can handle. every year that we have record modern co2 levels we also break new records on vegetation growth north and south of the equator and with this growth comes a massive suck on the co2 dropping it rapidly through the growing season. its kind of a good thing in a way with the growing worlds population. plants will grow faster and produce larger yields to help feed people and do it in areas previously incapable of such things going off recent evidence. so until we start seeing co2 above 1000ppm im not really all that worried. what does worry me is the other greenhouse gases produced by man that dont have a system to buffer them out



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog



Approx 25000 years ago the CO2 ramped up tremendously .

False.
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov...



This brought about a mini ice age that covered North America down to Dallas, Tx. in 2 feet of ice
Nonsense. 25,000 years ago the planet was in the midst of a glacial period (commonly, and incorrectly referred to as an ice age).



Thank you for pointing that out.

I had hoped the poster would exhibit the same enthusaism in replying as they did in posting — just another drive-by ideologue with no conviction or science. Sad.

a reply to: Gothmog



edit on 16-10-2017 by BeefNoMeat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: SlapMonkey

That’s interesting. Why, if the ice core data time and again attest to “temperature was the CAUSE of the CO2 increase, and not an effect from it”, has a debate about AGW even coalesced into what some call “settled science (I’m not playing devil’s advocate, it’s a legit question and I appreciate it)?

Well, to be fair, I don't really know the answer, although I certainly think that it is an exploited point that may be able to be shown in the past 150 years (which is only what AGW people cite), and the AGW crowd usually ends it at that. The claim is always that we are destroying the planet mainly since the industrial revolution and the burning of all of that fossil fuel.

But think about it: How many people actually care enough beyond the window shopping of AGW climate change theory to look into the larger scope of climate on earth, and the climate cycles, and the cycles within cycles, and so on? Not very many--you can find videos (heavily edited, of course) all over the interwebs of people being asked if they believe in "global warming" (implying the AGW model that everyone is taught in school), and most answer yes. Then if you ask why, you get the deer-in-the-headlights look.

People believe, for the most part, because they're told to, and then science classes that present the arguments generally do not expand past a couple of hundred of years.

Think about it--we are all taught about ice ages, and that we come in and out of them as a cycle of the earth. Then we're taught about the earth-destroying AGW theory, and it's like everyone throws out the information of the former and embraces the latter. Why?

Critical thinking is a lost relic of human society--it's probably locked in a golden box created in El Dorado and stored away in the Hall of Records somewhere beneath the Sphinx (and built by aliens, I'm sure). If people could put two and two together more often in life, then some of the things that are claimed/taught, even in schools, would cause many people to pause and say, "Wait...hold on a second...what about [insert other thing learned here and discuss why they are incongruous]."

But no one does that anymore--we are spoonfed information and don't think that researching its veracity or considering its placement in the bigger puzzle. It's sad, but it is what it is.

I'm not claiming that burning fossil fuels in mass quantities like we do isn't having an effect, and it could be trapping more heat in during the short-term time period, but we are in no way destroying the planet, controlling the earth's climate by our actions (to the massive degree claimed), or even really able to do the things that are claimed by many of these AGW theorists. I started my journey as a student of AGW theory in public schools in California for my whole life, and have, after massive amounts of research, turned into a skeptic...or, more accurately, an AGW Agnostic. I'm not narcissistic enough to think that I understand our climate and every part that drives or affects it (scientists don't, either), but I know enough to know that the alarmist claims of the AGW community are full of hyperbole, and I'm concerned and convinced that it has more to do with money than scientific accuracy.



It doesn’t help making any sense of this when NASA is still ‘tweaking’ their models based on new science/data...the more I read/hear about climate change/disruption/AGW, the more convulted and uncertain it all appears — 10 years ago I was told I’d have beachfront property. Can they (whoever they are — NASA in this case) make up their minds and stop making up new models? I was really looking forward to fishing in the surf. Doh!

No, it doesn't help that they keep tweaking the data and models, but to be fair, that's part of science. What isn't science is the bellowing that there's a consensus about the cause and effect of the AGW theory, and all who claim that the models and theories are correct enough to fuel and justify their alarmist claims and monetary goals are basically just hoping that they are correct based on their belief in the theory and, often enough, whether it aligns with their political ideology.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: network dude




a very natural occurrence "El Ninio"


I'd doubt that it's a natural occurrence and not a reaction to the rising temperatures. Thus your whole point is moot. Global warming can cause more global warming via extreme weather events like el nino or la nina.

No. Yes. D'oh!


derp, the title and article comes from NASA. I didn't write it. If you have an issue with the article, I can likely find you contact info so you can share your life experience with the suck holes as NASA and tell them how wrong they are, I hear they like the feedback.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Garmanarnar

Pretty much if you accept the science behind human induced climate change, there are many on here who will say you are following a cult or refer to it as a religion.

It is kind of sad.


What's sad is not being able to question the narrative. Did they give you black nike's?

What are you questioning, exactly?

That we are emitting the majority of CO2? If so, perhaps you missed this post on the prior page.

e: Hm, this might be unclear; by majority I mean the increase in CO2 levels. It's easy enough to calculate like I have in that post.


I would have thought you were the type to read the OP. oh well. In the OP, I had questioned the fact that this seemed to be a revelation, and not an expected result, which then led me to (dare I even say it) question the legitimacy of the statement "the science is settled". Please, Please understand I am not making any claims that AGW isn't real, that the planet isn't warming, and that you aren't totally right, I am only questioning the part in my mind where this is supposedly all figured out, yet, new things happen, and they seem to not have been expected. Almost as if there are lots and lots of factors involved with this, like Phage already said.

So if you have an issue with my statement backed up by Phage that there are many factors involved, I invite you to question him, as he is much better equipped to deal with those answers than I am. And if you have problems with me being a "denier", please note, that I didn't "deny" anything, I only questioned the statement "the science is settled". If that's not allowed, as seems to be the case, can you show me the scientific principals involved in science that claims to be 100% understood and NEVER questioned? Thanks so much in advance.
edit on 16-10-2017 by network dude because: $



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Hey derp, they didn't call el nino a natural occurrence. Thus there is no issue with the article, I'm referring to your moronic spindoctering in the OP. Go and figure?
edit on 16-10-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Very well said. I appreciate your cogent and salient points in your response. The alarmist ‘messaging’ from the AGW crowd seems to be as much of a detriment to their ‘cause’, as any empirical data set. Again, thanks for your response — fair, balanced and non-partisan.




new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join