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.

 

The real question concerning C02?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So. What model or study has been the most accurate to date?




posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux
You decide.
See my third post in this thread.
edit on 12/31/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux
You decide.
See my third post in this thread.


If you got something to say, don’t play games.

Just for you:


9 Effective Communication Skills

www.habitsforwellbeing.com...


Up to you if you want to be open and honest.

Or just smug.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You can lead a horse to water.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So again, in the spirit of effective communication, what is concerned the modt accurate model or study concerning temperature change?



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Whatever dude, again. Up to you if you want to or part of the flow of ideas. Or a check valve up on your own pedestal.

Hope you have a good new year.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

"Most accurate?" Hard to say. Why pick one? But as previously posted, CIMP3 seems to be doing quite well.

They all show a warming trend, due primarily to increasing CO2 emissions. But that's a big problem, predicting emission levels. Non of them show a decline in temperatures though. Because CO2 doesn't just go away.

edit on 12/31/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Just a little question here. The CO2 reading from the past. We get them from ice cores, correct?

Why isn't out gassing, compression, or solidification/liquification taken into account in the core samples?

Because I am pretty sure that in all of the past CO2 levels are far under-reported in the ice cores because of diffusion and outgassing is completely neglected. Then there is the compression of CO2 into other compounds due to pressure, removing or vastly compressing the CO2 bubbles, leading to under-representation. Then there is the liquification through dissolution into water... which it is surrounded by.

There is so much about the sources of information of what the atmosphere used to be composed of, that is based on flawed assumptions, that no study I have ever read actually takes into account when looking at them as a source for atmospheric CO2 in the past.
edit on 2-1-2019 by dubiousatworst because: grammar



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

"Most accurate?" Hard to say. Why pick one? But as previously posted, CIMP3 seems to be doing quite well.

They all show a warming trend, due primarily to increasing CO2 emissions. But that's a big problem, predicting emission levels. Non of them show a decline in temperatures though. Because CO2 doesn't just go away.

...except for time periods when there are large amounts of green growth, where CO2 is fixed into the ground in the growing stage of plants. As Old growth is a net neutral, and only new growth of plants have a non-negligible effect on CO2 in the atmosphere.

So if CO2 really is an actual problem, the most efficient way to fix CO2 rise would be to start chopping down all of the forests and growing new ones, while throwing all of the chopped down trees into landfills. Or through industrialized farming...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join