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.

 

Extinction Rebellion

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Go shout at a cloud or throw some coins at it.

Tell me how much it was bothered by you.





You may have dementia if that's how you are spending your days.


Dementia is thinking the world is going to end because climate change.





posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   

A simple harmonic model based on the 9.98, 10.9 and 11.86 year oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium such as the Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minima, as well as the seventeen 115-year long oscillations found in a detailed temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere covering the last 2000 years. The millennial three-frequency beat cycle hindcasts equivalent solar and climate cycles for 12,000 years. Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900-1920 and 1960-1980 and the secular solar maxima around 1870-1890, 1940-1950 and 1995-2005 and a secular upward trending during the 20th century: this modulated trending agrees well with some solar proxy model, with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite and with the global surface temperature modulation since 1850. The model forecasts a new prolonged grand solar minimum during 2020-2045, which would be produced by the minima of both the 61 and 115-year reconstructed cycles. The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other discussions are added about the evidences of an influence of the resonances of the solar system on solar activity explaining also the Jose (159-185 year), the Seuss (200-220 year) and Hallstatt (2100-2500 year) oscillations.


Long-term hindcast and forecast of solar activity variation based on the solar system resonance models


Having calculated the frequency content of a solar constant, solar activity from the time series in (1610-2012), the El Niño curve in both (1470-1984) and (1950-2075), it has been found that the frequency content of an El Niño – La Niña curve is induced by frequency contents of solar variables. The frequency contents of the variables have been calculated by developing their wavelet phase-frequency responses. Instantaneous phase differences of the solar variables curves CO2(t), global surface air temperature, El Niño in the two time intervals, in (1891-1950) and (1950-2009), have been calculated; linear approximations with coefficients of instantaneous phase differences between variables in these time intervals have been obtained. Based on relational approximation coefficient analysis of the two time intervals, it has been identified that rising surface air temperature and El Niño alike had been markedly influenced by solar variables variations during the first time interval, with the El Niño rise being affected by that of the surface air temperature amid the global climate change in 1950-2009. The predicted El Niño curves have been obtained from the 2015/16 to 2050 time period by the trained data curve in 1950-2015/16 in two versions as the sum of predicted wavelet approximating and detailing components of the original signal according to the Mallat rule. The accuracy of the predictive El Niño curve values is » 83%. On the obtained curves, coordinates of local maximum and minimum are nearly matching. Wavelet phase-frequency response imaging of one curve reflects an impact on El Niño – La Niña variations of the Earth’s solar and climatic variables in the past and the future alike.


Wavelet analysis of the El Niño – La Niña phenomenon dynamics and its forecasting


The major harmonics centred at ~ 63 ± 5, 22 ± 2, and 10 ± 1 years are similar to solar periodicities and hence may represent solar forcing, while the components peaking at around 7.6, 6.3, 5.2, 4.7, and 4.2 years apparently falls in the frequency bands of El-Nino-Southern Oscillations linked to the oceanic internal processes. Our analyses also suggest evidence for the amplitude modulation of ~ 9–11 and ~ 21–22 year solar cycles, respectively, by 104 and 163 years in northern and southern hemispheric SST data [during 1850 to 2014]. The absence of the above periodic oscillations in CO2 fails to suggest its role on observed inter-hemispheric SST difference. The cross-plot analysis also revealed strong influence of solar activity on linear trend of NH- and SH-SST [Northern/Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature] in addition to small contribution from CO2. Our study concludes that (1) the long-term trends in northern and southern hemispheric SST variability show considerable synchronicity with cyclic warming and cooling phases and (2) the difference in cyclic forcing and non-linear modulations stemming from solar variability as a possible source of hemispheric SST differences. … The trend components of NH-SST and SH-SST show strong relationship with TSI [Total Solar Irradiance] trend variations and poor in relation with global CO2 trend.


Search for Trends and Periodicities in Inter-hemispheric Sea Surface Temperature Difference


Over the past decade there has been increasing realization and concern that the steady and high solar luminosity of the past century may transition to greater variability later this century (Abreu et al. 2008; Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010; Lockwood 2010). Specifically, the Sun may descend into a period of low magnetic activity analogous to the historical Maunder minimum (MM; circa 1640–1715; Eddy 1976). A resulting decrease in total solar irradiance (TSI) impacting the terrestrial lower atmosphere energy budget is linked to changes in high-latitude circulation patterns that strongly influence the climate of Europe and the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and subArctic (Song et al. 2010; Meehl et al. 2013), and may also influence Antarctic climate (Orsi et al. 2012). Studies have also shown the importance of stratospheric response to a grand minimum (e.g., Gray et al. 2010; Bolduc et al. 2015; Maycock et al. 2015). Over a solar cycle and certainly in response to a future grand minimum, irradiance variability at middle ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths that drive oxygen photolysis and ozone chemistry is much larger that that of the TSI. Resulting changes to stratospheric ozone abundance alter the stratosphere–troposphere temperature gradient and feed back to tropospheric planetary wave refraction, further altering climatically relevant circulation patterns (Maycock et al. 2015). With this realization that both direct radiative and indirect stratospheric influences affect terrestrial climate under a solar grand minimum, it is important to understand how UV irradiance would respond to such a large and prolonged change in solar magnetic activity.


Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUE Short-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs

All emphases mine.

How's that for 'pseudo-debunks?'



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Try this link and gaze away the temp anomaly map. The blue blob you see above the US is obviously cold air from the Arctic, which was pushed (or pulled) south in between vapors of warm air. The technical term here would be Atmospheric Rivers, if I'm not mistaken.
It's a direct result of Climate Change due to the wavy (and weaker) Polar Jets, which allow said rivers to form more frequently. And we've lost roughly 80% of the cold air mass in the Arctic already.


Regardless of the drivers, the results obtained here show that extremely cold air mass in the Arctic has undergone a dramatic reduction (by about 80%) over the past 60 years. The magnitude of this decrease suggests that the cold air mass metrics used here are robust indicators of change that should be part of a continued monitoring for change in the Arctic and the broader climate system.

Indicators and trends of polar cold airmass

You just provided another example for climate change, it's called extreme weather events and they occur precisely as it was predicted.

a reply to: MadLad

I don't disagree with you, but I can't afford to wait another 3 decades for solutions from the saints and technocrats. That ship has sailed, we need to push for the innovations we don't see in this allegedly "free" market...


edit on 26-2-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

www.washingtontimes.com...

The climate change debate went nuclear Sunday over a whistleblower’s explosive allegation that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association manipulated data to advance a political agenda by hiding the global warming “pause.”

In an article on the Climate Etc. blog, John Bates, who retired last year as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, accused the lead author of the 2015 NOAA “pausebuster” report of trying to “discredit” the hiatus through “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards.”

In addition, Mr. Bates told the Daily [U.K.] Mail that the report’s author, former NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information director Thomas Karl, did so by “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.”


Manipulated data... or "corrected" data as NOAA calls it to sugarcoat/excuse the manipulation to suit the narrative, is as worthless as tits on a bull. As before, it's cyclical and indicative of a living planet on which there is no constant. The climate was in flux before man crawled off the African savannah and it will be in flux long after we've managed to starve ourselves out in pennance for imaginary wrongs some never tire of accusing the species of.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
I can't afford to wait another 3 decades for solutions from the saints and technocrats.


Sucks to be you because this "rebellion" you speak of will either result in a whimper or, if damaging enough, the exact opposite of your goal will be seen as even more Americans backlash against your cause and grind the rebellion under the boot of progress and society.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   
"Today we are seeing the new rise of so-called Heretics and Believers.
But it isn’t in the Christian church.
Rather, it is in a newly formed religion known as Man-made Climate Change – or the People’s Church of Climate Justice.
Man-made Climate Change is not based on the scientific method. It isn’t science. Rather, it is a Dogma — articles of faith away from which nobody is permitted to veer.
It demands of its adherents complete fealty without question, skepticism or doubt.
That’s not science. Inherent is science is skepticism and doubt. In fact, skepticism is the cornerstone of the scientific method.
But for the Climate Change adherents, there can be no skepticism. You are not permitted to question the dogma.
You must simply believe.
And if you do not, you are labeled a heretic."

-patriotretort.com...


The author of this put to words, thoughts that I agree with.

Agree or disagree, it matters not. Believe or disbelieve, I'm fine either way.

But don't TAKE from me to fund your "climate church".





posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Go shout at a cloud or throw some coins at it.

Tell me how much it was bothered by you.





You may have dementia if that's how you are spending your days.


Dementia is thinking the world is going to end because climate change.





yes however the world will be just fine, we the people I'm not so sure will be fine.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Mr. John Bates can go back to the Bates Hotel, he lost me with "alleges".

a reply to: jadedANDcynical




How's that for 'pseudo-debunks?'


Completely irrelevant and not even close to the topic.

I can work with the second study though. With a solar minimum ahead, we shouldn't see increasing effects in case your cited study holds some water. That's simple logics right there. And the problem with that would be, that we do. Which renders the whole piece suboptimal at best.
Furthermore, the whole text is Russian only. Seriously, WTF dude? C'mon!


"We can't say from this study whether more or fewer El Niños will form in the future, or whether the El Niños that do form will be stronger or weaker," Fasullo said. "But we can say that an El Niño that forms in the future is likely to have more influence over our weather than if the same El Niño formed today."

phys.org...



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The point is, that big glowing ball in the sky has a much greater impact upon our climate than we do. Here, have another:


• Solar Cycle Lengths (SCLs) combine with CO2 to reduce Transient Climate Response (TCR) by 1.23X

• The TCR to doubled CO2 is less than 2K (1.93 ± 0.26K).

• Only 1.1K of HadCRUT4 warming is expected between 2000 and 2100AD.

• ∼35% of the warming during 1980–2001 was from solar variability, by 2 different analyses.

• Temperature is nearly 3 times as sensitive to solar radiation as to CO2 radiation.


On the influence of solar cycle lengths and carbon dioxide on global temperatures



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




The author of this put to words, thoughts that I agree with.


You still can "don't believe in science" on your own time. Just do us a favor and stop using the devices created by said belief, how's that for some coherent thought in your life?

Reductio ad absurdum, anyone?



In fact, skepticism is the cornerstone of the scientific method.


Which is why I'll remain skeptic regarding you self-proclaimed climate change skeptics (CCS). You can't even address the topic without this constant, and utterly annoying, deflection with platitudes.

I'd applaud you for questioning the dogma, if you could. And the dogma in question sounds like "Climate Change is a hoax". That is your dogma, right?
edit on 26-2-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I'm an engineer, a scientist.

I look at data, not someone's interpretation or feelings on data.

I'm a skeptic who mocks the religious fervor of the man-made climate change adherents.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical




that big glowing ball in the sky has a much greater impact upon our climate than we do.


Nobody argues with that part, literally nobody.
Here's the rub:


Greenland’s massive ice stockpile is melting faster than previously thought, and it may be too late to do anything about it except “adapt,” scientists have warned in a new study. The rate of ice loss there is up to four times faster than it was in 2003 and is contributing to rising sea levels, according to the new data.

'A Tipping Point.' Greenland's Ice Is Melting Much Faster Than Previously Thought, Scientists Say

We should see none of that in case a solar minimum is happening already. Right?


During 2008–09 NASA scientists noted that the Sun is undergoing a "deep solar minimum," stating: "There were no sunspots observed on 266 of [2008's] 366 days (73%). Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Sunspot counts for 2009 dropped even lower. As of September 14, 2009 there were no sunspots on 206 of the year's 257 days (80%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the National Space Science and Technology Center NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll thus conclude that a decrease of solar radiation is completely irrelevant for our topic. This might counter global warming to a certain degree eventually, but it certainly isn't enough to make a dent.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse


The information from all the research is being twisted to blame our problems all on carbon, carbon may be a part of it but not nearly as much as they are saying it is.

First off: I am in no way criticizing the remedial steps you mention in your post.

Second: I am basically taking this as an opportunity to plug The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) , completed in November 2018. I haven't read it all yet, but:


Causes of Change

Scientists have understood the fundamental physics of climate change for almost 200 years. In the 1850s, researchers demonstrated that carbon dioxide and other naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent some of the heat radiating from Earth’s surface from escaping to space: this is known as the greenhouse effect. This natural greenhouse effect warms the planet’s surface about 60°F above what it would be otherwise, creating a habitat suitable for life. Since the late 19th century, however, humans have released an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels and, to a lesser extent, deforestation and land-use change. As a result, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the largest contributor to human-caused warming, has increased by about 40% over the industrial era. This change has intensified the natural greenhouse effect, driving an increase in global surface temperatures and other widespread changes in Earth’s climate that are unprecedented in the history of modern civilization.

Global climate is also influenced by natural factors that determine how much of the sun’s energy enters and leaves Earth’s atmosphere and by natural climate cycles that affect temperatures and weather patterns in the short term, especially regionally (see Ch. 2: Climate, Box 2.1). However, the unambiguous long-term warming trend in global average temperature over the last century cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence. Without human activities, the influence of natural factors alone would actually have had a slight cooling effect on global climate over the last 50 years
nca2018.globalchange chapter 1 overview


My prediction: 5 years from today, no credible person will be calling anthropogenic climate change a hoax. Too bad the point of no return will be in something like 4 years.
edit on 26-2-2019 by pthena because: forgot to put reference in



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: rickymouse


The information from all the research is being twisted to blame our problems all on carbon, carbon may be a part of it but not nearly as much as they are saying it is.

First off: I am in no way criticizing the remedial steps you mention in your post.

Second: I am basically taking this as an opportunity to plug The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) , completed in November 2018. I haven't read it all yet, but:


Causes of Change

Scientists have understood the fundamental physics of climate change for almost 200 years. In the 1850s, researchers demonstrated that carbon dioxide and other naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent some of the heat radiating from Earth’s surface from escaping to space: this is known as the greenhouse effect. This natural greenhouse effect warms the planet’s surface about 60°F above what it would be otherwise, creating a habitat suitable for life. Since the late 19th century, however, humans have released an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels and, to a lesser extent, deforestation and land-use change. As a result, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the largest contributor to human-caused warming, has increased by about 40% over the industrial era. This change has intensified the natural greenhouse effect, driving an increase in global surface temperatures and other widespread changes in Earth’s climate that are unprecedented in the history of modern civilization.

Global climate is also influenced by natural factors that determine how much of the sun’s energy enters and leaves Earth’s atmosphere and by natural climate cycles that affect temperatures and weather patterns in the short term, especially regionally (see Ch. 2: Climate, Box 2.1). However, the unambiguous long-term warming trend in global average temperature over the last century cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence. Without human activities, the influence of natural factors alone would actually have had a slight cooling effect on global climate over the last 50 years


My prediction: 5 years from today, no credible person will be calling anthropogenic climate change a hoax. Too bad the point of no return will be in something like 4 years.


The only way to fix climate change is to quit wasting and build things to last. To stop all this air travel, people going to places because they want to do it. Make air travel expensive, tax the hell out of it so nobody can afford to fly or limit everyone to only flying once every couple of years and only for emergencies. The United States raised it's pollution standards years ago and big corporations decided to go to China to be competitive where environmental standards are very poor. The American people sucked in the cheap products and our economy soared, having to buy new stuff every five years or so because it is all death dated.

The smoke from factories is a very contributing thing to climate change. The nuclear power plants actually allowed more power to be made and kept it affordable which led to people buying more junk and investing in everything electric. It was not our needs that caused this problem it was our wants and waste that created this mess. I do not like to waste food, but a third of the food is wasted in the USA. That adds to carbon emmissions. The half a cow I buy does not fart nearly as much as an angus cow eating corn and soy, yet they want to tax grassfed organic beef and veggies just like commercial products. It is not the environmental issue I challenge, it is how they are trying to address the issue that I am against. Making things more expensive is not the answer, the rich actually cause a real lot of the polution, they will just raise prices to cover any increases and it will hurt the consumer the most.

It is way more complex than taxing carbon, the earth has the ability to re-uptake the carbon if done correctly. Commercial farming and building things to die after a few years is destroying our environment. People getting spoiled by all kinds of promotions and advertising is leading to overtaxing the environment.

You have to look at the whole picture, not just a snapshot of one part of the problem. Nitrous oxide and methane and chemicals excreted from some factories are way worse than carbon dioxide.
edit on 26-2-2019 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Climate Change: Global Temperature

I think that Mother Nature picture you posted was photoshopped.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I'm with you on the air travel. I had no idea how bad it was until the government shutdown affected the Air Traffic Controllers and Airlines. They showed a picture like this of planes currently in air and tracked.

I freaked out.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: rickymouse

I'm with you on the air travel. I had no idea how bad it was until the government shutdown affected the Air Traffic Controllers and Airlines. They showed a picture like this of planes currently in air and tracked.

I freaked out.


That picture does not even include the small planes, only the larger commercial passenger airlines and the cargo airlines. Add another five hundred private planes into those snapshot pictures., which includes the helicopters and law enforcement aircraft from small airports too.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 05:07 AM
link   
That picture isn't telling you the real story.

Long haul,short haul,cargo aircraft.

And the only planes that are the in the air the long are international flights.

You put an end to air travel.

Your lives are going to suck.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




I'm a skeptic who mocks the religious fervor of the man-made climate change adherents.


Careful D.

Sooner or later us heretics are going to burn at the stake.




posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse



It is way more complex than taxing carbon, the earth has the ability to re-uptake the carbon if done correctly. Commercial farming and building things to die after a few years is destroying our environment. People getting spoiled by all kinds of promotions and advertising is leading to overtaxing the environment.


That's beside the point, I'm not breaking a lance for carbon taxes and similar political ploys from the increasingly corrupt elites. This red tape madness is part of the problem, it achieves nothing.



You have to look at the whole picture, not just a snapshot of one part of the problem. Nitrous oxide and methane and chemicals excreted from some factories are way worse than carbon dioxide.


Not with regards to this topic of climate change, but it's obviously not a bad idea to shut down all kinds of pollution.

 


However. Our... err... "heretics" (aint they the Catholics in this scenario?) came to mind while reading this piece:


[...]
But calling the Left “antis” – people who are just against stuff but not for anything – is only one of the rhetorical mechanisms employed to slander and demean radicals and progressives. Another set of false accusations come into play when progressive solutions see the light of day and threaten to garner significant popular support. When that happens, it no longer suffices to say that the Left offers no alternatives. The slander shifts and portside activists and intellectuals are accused of calling for too much, not for too little. They are charged with authoritarian, even totalitarian overreach. At the same time, Left proposals are smeared as “unrealistic,” “fantastic,” “pie-in-the sky,” “dreamy,” and the like.

As with the “no solution” slur, this different set of allegations come not just from Republicans but also and most dangerously from the reigning corporate and neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, assigned the task of defining and policing the narrow leftmost boundaries of acceptable political and policy debate in the United States.
[...]

Slandering the Not-So Radical Green New Deal: A Bipartisan Operation

... and I don't believe this New Green Deal is radical enough, which would be the whole dilemma in a nutshell. It doesn't address things like overproduction, the waste of resources and this globalized corruption in favor of mil-ind-complexes.


[...]
Which should remind us of something you’ll never hear from the GND’s right-wing and liberal detractors: it is, if anything,insufficiently radical, not excessively radical. It’s progressive- Democrat sponsors have yet to join serious eco-socialists in calling for the green transformation they rightly desire to be funded, as it will have to be, with resources garnered from massive reductions in the U.S. military budget, which eats up more than half of U.S. federal discretionary spending and sustains a global military empire that is itself the world’s single largest institutional carbon emitter.[...]




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join