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.
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)
No.
Are they just assuming a constant and stable sun?
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.
originally posted by: 0x6372756d6273
a reply to: network dude
I understand now.
You've got a bad case of "denial denial".
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.
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.
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?
a very natural occurrence "El Ninio"
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.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog
Approx 25000 years ago the CO2 ramped up tremendously .
False.
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov...
Nonsense. 25,000 years ago the planet was in the midst of a glacial period (commonly, and incorrectly referred to as an ice age).
This brought about a mini ice age that covered North America down to Dallas, Tx. in 2 feet of ice
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)?
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!
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!
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.