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.

 

Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

page: 6
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by EvidenceNibbler removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

The entire education system is designed now to think in short term... I agree with your post, still it's very depressing.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Is National Geographic good enough?


No. You were clearly asked for a peer reviewed paper published in a major scientific journal, not an opinion piece from Nat Geo. There's plenty of them out there, just wondered which one you would pick.
edit on 29-12-2017 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: bluechevytree

Wait, so are you saying that you can't explain global warming without human intervention? Then in the next paragraph you say it's natural. I'm confused.

a reply to: bluechevytree

How can you see it on 150 year graph then if it's way longer?



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Smithsonian Ocean Portal?
edit on 29-12-2017 by Peeple because: Auto


Quit playing games. So far I've been nice but if I start playing you, you will hit the wall so hard on your way out... just




edit on 29-12-2017 by Peeple because: Add



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: bluechevytree

How can you see it on 150 year graph then if it's way longer?


The 150 year chart shows an inconsequential blip in temperature.
If you want to call that a global warming trend then sure you can take that view - it just doesn't show anything unusual that would point to a global warming issue we should be concerned about, and certainly not spend trillions to try and correct.

Let me give you an example; for 30 million years, from about 65m years ago to 35 million years ago the CO2 levels fell, yet the temperature spiked higher, and at a higher rate than temperature is rising now. There is a reason many of the charts you see on the news are a microcosm in time. Narrow the focus to support the scam.
edit on 29/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kalixi
A leader with balls!


This is my President!



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Smithsonian Ocean Portal?

Quit playing games. So far I've been nice but if I start playing you, you will hit the wall so hard on your way out... just



I asked for a peer reviewed paper on ocean acidification, published in a reputable journal, is that too much to ask?

I have no idea what your threat about hitting the wall hard means.

If you cannot find a peer reviewed paper on the subject, we are done here, start your own thread on ocean acidification if that is the case, quit derailing this thread I made.
edit on 29-12-2017 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:00 AM
link   
The worst he could do is inspire debate on the subject, unless you’re the Thought police, in which case he is engaging in genocide.
edit on 29-12-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Demanding peer reviewed papers while using blogs as evidence lol.
Back to the OP I guess Trump got his hands on a computer without supervision.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Smithsonian Ocean Portal?

Quit playing games. So far I've been nice but if I start playing you, you will hit the wall so hard on your way out... just





Perhaps you could just supply what you were asked for? I don't know if you are right or wrong, but you should at least try to support your position. Better still, you should also point to some data/evidence that undermines your position and have some rationale as to why it is wrong. That would show you have actually done some legwork on this issue as opposed to the rather turgid position you have taken thus far.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Demanding peer reviewed papers while using blogs as evidence lol.
Back to the OP I guess Trump got his hands on a computer without supervision.


He's right though, isn't he? It's very very cold after all. I am sure he intended to have a little fun with the people who hate any form of deviation from their doctrine. It worked.

edit on 29/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Demanding peer reviewed papers while using blogs as evidence lol.
Back to the OP I guess Trump got his hands on a computer without supervision.


I was hoping to get something like the following so we could have a proper debate.


Estimation of anthropogenic CO2 inventories in the ocean.
Sabine CL1, Tanhua T.
Author information
Abstract
A significant impetus for recent ocean biogeochemical research has been to better understand the ocean's role as a sink for anthropogenic CO2. In the 1990s the global carbon survey of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) inspired the development of several approaches for estimating anthropogenic carbon inventories in the ocean interior. Most approaches agree that the total global ocean inventory of Cant was around 120 Pg C in the mid-1990s. Today, the ocean carbon uptake rate estimates suggest that the ocean is not keeping pace with the CO2 emissions growth rate. Repeat occupations of the WOCE/JGOFS survey lines consistently show increases in carbon inventories over the last decade, but have not yet been synthesized enough to verify a slowdown in the carbon storage rate. There are many uncertainties in the future ocean carbon storage. Continued observations are necessary to monitor changes and understand mechanisms controlling ocean carbon uptake and storage in the future.


or this..

Abstract
Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively. In contrast, the geological record contains long-term evidence for a variety of global environmental perturbations, including ocean acidification plus their associated biotic responses. We review events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean acidification over the past ~300 million years of Earth’s history, some with contemporaneous extinction or evolutionary turnover among marine calcifiers. Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.

edit on 29-12-2017 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:11 AM
link   
So much deflection and straw man arguments in this thread.

The point being ignored by most is the fact that the Paris climate agreement was a scam that would have had zero impact on the climate. While taking billions of dollars from the US and sending it to China and other nations who are causing the most pollution. Yet would have not required them to curb their CO2 output.

Not to even address the fact that CO2 increase is a result of warmer temperatures and not a cause. A scam that America is unquestionably better off not being a part of.
edit on 29-12-2017 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well, it literally is a trend of global warming, since the globe got warmer. That much is clear at least. And bluechevy said we have no knowledge of how much it's "supposed" to warm. So how do you know it's not unusual? And no, I don't think that graph alone shows a GW trend we should be concerned about, I was just trying to figure out what was meant. It could be mostly coincidental. Honestly, this debate has gone on for so long that I've been ignoring it for years, except for the odd take on this forum.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
So much deflection and straw man arguments in this thread.

The point being ignored by most is the fact that the Paris climate agreement was a scam that would have had zero impact on the climate. While taking billions of dollars from the US and sending it to China and other nations who are causing the most pollution. Yet would have not required them to curb their CO2 output.

Not to even address the fact that CO2 increase is a result of warmer temperatures and not a cause. A scam that America is unquestionably better off not being a part of.


Well said! 100 billion a year by 2020 to the Green Climate Fund based in Korea would have just made America poorer. It was an ingenious scheme to tax the entire world and transfer that money into the hands of the rich.

President Trump saved America from that, be interesting to see what nations are gonna pick up the slack and fund the Green Climate Fund now, TPTB have been ripping off America for far too long, billions of dollars of wealth transferred out of the nation into the hands of rich globalists so they may rape and pillage the worlds resources even more.

Warming oceans will off gas C02, who's to say the increase isn't partly natural?

MAGA
edit on 29-12-2017 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: notsure1
Arent we all supposed to be dead from a massive hole in the ozone by now?

This shi is comical.

The ozone hole bs was the first screw job.


Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Not an end-of-days thing for sure but the 'hole' is a real thing and I know that because I live in an 'exposed' region for about half of each year. Spend a sunny day here in spring or autumn with your shirt off and you'd be convinced as well (extreme UV penetration). It fluctuates season to season but doesn't appear to be increasing in size based on averages.

Like climate change, it's hard to associate human activity with it but, conversely, it can't definitively be ruled out yet with any certainty either.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler




Do you have any actual data or is this meme the limit of your evidence? Because the ice caps are getting smaller, there's satellite imagery that backs this up but it's 7.40am and I have a 3 year old and a 5 year old to contend with...



www.nasa.gov...


Oct. 30, 2015

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.


First of all this article is 2 years old, I don't have time to find it (trying to finish off a garden before the snow comes in a couple of hours) but wasn't there a story from NASA this year that stated the Melt was the worst it's ever been? I may be wrong but that was in the back of my mind as I read that, before I checked the date, thinking this was a recent article.

Now, from your link..


But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”


So it's not all smelling of roses.

Also the article states that, despite the Antarctic removing 0.23mm of water a year, sea levels are still rising by 0.27mm a year which was previously attributed to Antarctic Melt, so now they don't know where it's coming from, so sea levels are still rising and the snow may not always make up for the melt and the sea rise could.speed up.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

You live in Antarctica?




top topics



 
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join