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.

 

Climate literacy

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I didn't know you were an advocate of the Mandela effect.

I didn't know the Mandela effect covered a simple re-write of history. That's been going on since man learned to make funny-looking symbols.

We both know how CFCs work, Phage. Well, at least I do; you have links.

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why link only the abstract, if you don't have the full study, you couldn't have read it. Don't do that.

paper




The "conundrum": Marcott's proxy reconstruction for the period from 12,000 to 7,000 years ago shows a greater warming trend than climate models. The reconstruction then shows a cooling trend from 7,000 years ago while models show warming.

A known problem with Marcott's study is that it was lacking detailed data for winter temperatures.



It's your first comment to the thread. Nothing about the statement is true. You provide no evidence to support it.

Fixing the summer insolation bias in Marcott would bring the reconstruction more line with models. The models show warming in the late holocene.

I don't see the point you're trying to make.

If you do try to find any research to support your claim, make sure it is up to date science, that specifically deals with the effects of orbital and radiative forcing on late holocene temperature changes.





And please, in the future limit your arguments to one at a time. I dislike dealing with gish gallops.


You don't have any reason to complain here, i had to remind you to stay on topic more than once. The point is simple, your Milankovich statement is demonstrably false.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: WilliamR
Yeah, I always try to find the whole article, but I'm not concerned enough to pay $9 for it and the statement in the abstract is quite clear.


It's your first comment to the thread. Nothing about the statement is true. You provide no evidence to support it.
Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with the arguments.

Here's what Marcott has said about his model:

We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the paleotemperature records are biased toward a particular season rather than recording true annual mean temperatures. For instance, high-latitude proxies based on short-lived plants or other organisms may record the temperature during the warmer and sunnier summer months when the organisms grow most rapidly.


A summer cooling trend through Holocene time, if driven by orbitally modulated seasonal insolation, might be partially canceled out by winter warming due to well-known orbitally driven rise in Northern-Hemisphere winter insolation through Holocene time. Summer-biased proxies would not record this averaging of the seasons. It is not currently possible to quantify this seasonal effect in the reconstructions.


www.realclimate.org...


Fixing the summer insolation bias in Marcott would bring the reconstruction more line with models. The models show warming in the late holocene.
Yes. That is what Baker has done. "Fixed" the bias, which helps provide validation for the models.

 


The point is simple, your Milankovich statement is demonstrably false.
No, there is strong evidence that the Milankovich cycles have profound effects on climate. Marcott agrees. That doesn't mean that is is "proven." But in any case, it doesn't have much to do with the current trend.

The dominance of the northern signal in our global stack is consistent with Milankovitch theory, in which summer insolation would drive the planet toward eventual future glacial inception in the Northern Hemisphere (24), excluding any anthropogenic influence.
www.scienceintheclassroom.org...

So do these guys:

The main finding of this study is that changes in the seasonal insolation cycle during the last 7000 years of the Holocene, forced by variations in the Earth’s orbital parameters, are a significant cause for the observed opposing trends of cooling and warming in the extratropics and the tropics, respectively.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

edit on 3/22/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/22/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   
It was called 'global warming', and now it's called 'climate change'.

Nonsense, by any other name, is still nonsense.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Ignorance by any other name.

Two different, though related, phenomena.
Global warming is a rise in the average global temperature. Climate change is the result.

Global warming is a term which has been used since before the 70s, as is climate change.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Pity humans are so stubborn.. they have to always be right, and refuse to accept the truth until past the point where admitting it would have made a difference.

Especially when the consensus (by a wide margin) of scientists and studies have come to the conclusion that climate change and global warming is very real, and that humans are largely responsible. You can find countless studies now.

But no.. non-scientists are smarter than hundreds.. even thousands of scientists who say otherwise. It's all a sneaky agenda by the powers that be for control or whatever. The obvious rise of temperatures correlating with the industrial revolution is obviously just you know.. just a coincidence, attributed instead to 100k year cycles instead. Even though we should be cooling just now, not heating up.



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
CO2 makes plants grow more. The more CO2, the more life on earth. It's plain and simple. If it gets a little hotter, that's fine, it was a lot hotter with a lot more CO2 before, and there was even more life on earth. CO2 is the opposite of a pollutant.

CO2 levels are still dangerously low at 400 ppm. They should be at least 1200 ppm. We could burn all the fossil fuels in the world and it still wouldn't come close to 1000 ppm, probably only about 500 ppm.

Sadly, however, the sun is the main force behind climate change, and even if we bring CO2 levels up, the sun could still dim, and most humans would die soon after.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck




Oh, wait, did I detect sarcasm?

No. More a sense of futility.

It seems to be human nature to not do anything about anything until absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, the growing CO2 content of the atmosphere has a lot of inertia. It's a big 'ol snowball and delaying action only makes it more difficult (and expensive) to deal with.


CO2 will not likely turn out to be a snowball unless it causes some serious cooling, which i thought you believe it was warming.

Human nature and apparently rigid science doomers also appear to have to wait till it is too late to figure out that CO2 had literally nothing to do with the apparent changes that scare them so badly.

What truly mystifies the soul is the ones as yourself that join their closed-minded and circuited club and relegate science back to a stone age type system that absolutely hates new forms of data and actively looks for human collusion in place of all other forms of collusive evidence of anything.

This type of programming is easy to see, and quite cult-like, and refuses to speculate on other forces in the Universe and focuses blame always on humans, much like the good'ol OLD Testament.

Too much religion will get you , nowhere as usual.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck




Oh, wait, did I detect sarcasm?

No. More a sense of futility.

It seems to be human nature to not do anything about anything until absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, the growing CO2 content of the atmosphere has a lot of inertia. It's a big 'ol snowball and delaying action only makes it more difficult (and expensive) to deal with.


CO2 will not likely turn out to be a snowball unless it causes some serious cooling, which i thought you believe it was warming.

Human nature and apparently rigid science doomers also appear to have to wait till it is too late to figure out that CO2 had literally nothing to do with the apparent changes that scare them so badly.

What truly mystifies the soul is the ones as yourself that join their closed-minded and circuited club and relegate science back to a stone age type system that absolutely hates new forms of data and actively looks for human collusion in place of all other forms of collusive evidence of anything.

This type of programming is easy to see, and quite cult-like, and refuses to speculate on other forces in the Universe and focuses blame always on humans, much like the good'ol OLD Testament.

Too much religion will get you , nowhere as usual.


Well, the Committee on Climate Change, an independent view from experts in the fields of climate change, environmental economics, behavioural science, business, conservation, and public health have determined that CO2 is indeed creating a greenhouse effect.

www.theccc.org.uk...



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




So the trend is up. How much? Over what period of time?


What amounts to a nano second out of 5 billion years.

Their 'data' is misleading.

It's like taking a financial chart from the 2008 market crash screaming the end is nigh without putting it in to context of a much larger time frame.
edit on 23-3-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
A couple weeks ago it was like 55 degrees when they said average for late Feb was around 65. Then they showed the record high, 85 degrees from some time in the 1890s.
Temperatures always rise and fall...Here in California our rains tend to make 10yr average cycles of heavy flooding rains and then years of droughts, then rains again...srsly there were floods in the mid 60s and 70s, floods in 86, floods around 96, some smaller floods in 06 cause we had a larger drought that season, than 2016-current we have been having more rain than usual.

Geological history shows California has had 100yr droughts in its history...weather/climate always changes, sometimes on a small cycle, sometimes on a much larger cycle. Hell there was a "mini ice age" just a few hundred years ago!
edit on 3/23/2019 by AnonymousMoose because: derp



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: neo96
Climate literacy

Begins with the fact the climate is a perpetual motion engine.

Not doing anything new, and has been in a constant state of change since Gensis( If you believe that sort).

People running around like a bunch of chittle littles screaming the sky is falling serves no real purpose.

Other than to spread fear, and paranoia.

And those charts are meaningless.

A snapshot out of billions of years.


Are you a climate scientist? More than likely you are not. I'm not. Most everybody else on this site isn't.

Climate scientists, who study this topic on a daily basis, mostly all agree that the climate is warming and it is caused by humans. [1] You have zero evidence to back up your claim that everything will be ok, while on the other side there are mountains of data to back up climate change caused by humanity.

Let's put together a scenario. Your doctor tells you that you have cancer. He says that with treatment you can reverse the disease and live a happy life. Your response is to tell the doctor he doesn't know what he is talking about and that your body has been fine your entire life. You tell him that your body is constantly changing and there is nothing to worry about.

I don't think you would really do that so why do you do the same thing when it comes to climate science? The professionals who are educated are telling us there is a problem and some members of the population are pretending they are the actual educated ones? Doesn't make any sense.

You are probably too young to remember this, but in the 1970's scientists first alerted the public about the Ozone hole. That news was met in pretty much the exact same way global warming was. Companies who manufactured or used CFC's fought back and sought to discredit the scientific data. Hell, they used pretty much the same arguments such as "There is no way humans can affect the environment" and "We have been using this forever and there have never been any issues." Fast forward to the late '80s and NASA was finally able to produce photographic evidence of the ozone hole. That led to the policy changes of 1989 banning CFC's which has in turn led to the shrinking of the ozone hole.

But go ahead, keep believing that global warming isn't a problem. It's not like I could convince you of anything using logic an reason.

If you think this rate of warming is normal, why don't you find another time in history in which the climate changed as rapidly as it is today. You can't do it. It's not possible because it does not exist. Sure, it has been hotter on earth than it is today. It has also been colder. But the climate has NEVER changed this rapidly without an accompanying mass extinction.

[1] www.scientificamerican.com...
[2]


Absolutely. There has never been a doctor that defrauded an insurance company for monetary gain...lmao

Horrible analogy


So let's say you decide that doctor is a fraud. You go to a another doctor, he says the same thing, then another. Pretty soon you've gone to ten doctors and they all say you have cancer and it can be treated but you need to act fast. Are they all frauds?



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223

Yes.

I'll take the wheat grass. Because it really, really works.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I really don't think it is intentionally misleading. I tend to think we have a massively complex system and that some of the early models showed extreme warming due to miscalculation of the carbon dioxide contribution. That combined with the failure to include all potential feedbacks led to a few politicians seeing a way to add to their tax base, and the politicians then used their financial influence to skew research towards carbon dioxide as the culprit.

The result is the same though... more calls to limit one of the two sources of all life on earth in order to pad pockets. Science and scientific skepticism be damned.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And now for brief interlude from our sponsors - Ladies & Gentleman let the Rodeo begin




posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: neo96
Climate literacy

Begins with the fact the climate is a perpetual motion engine.

Not doing anything new, and has been in a constant state of change since Gensis( If you believe that sort).

People running around like a bunch of chittle littles screaming the sky is falling serves no real purpose.

Other than to spread fear, and paranoia.

And those charts are meaningless.

A snapshot out of billions of years.


Are you a climate scientist? More than likely you are not. I'm not. Most everybody else on this site isn't.

Climate scientists, who study this topic on a daily basis, mostly all agree that the climate is warming and it is caused by humans. [1] You have zero evidence to back up your claim that everything will be ok, while on the other side there are mountains of data to back up climate change caused by humanity.

Let's put together a scenario. Your doctor tells you that you have cancer. He says that with treatment you can reverse the disease and live a happy life. Your response is to tell the doctor he doesn't know what he is talking about and that your body has been fine your entire life. You tell him that your body is constantly changing and there is nothing to worry about.

I don't think you would really do that so why do you do the same thing when it comes to climate science? The professionals who are educated are telling us there is a problem and some members of the population are pretending they are the actual educated ones? Doesn't make any sense.

You are probably too young to remember this, but in the 1970's scientists first alerted the public about the Ozone hole. That news was met in pretty much the exact same way global warming was. Companies who manufactured or used CFC's fought back and sought to discredit the scientific data. Hell, they used pretty much the same arguments such as "There is no way humans can affect the environment" and "We have been using this forever and there have never been any issues." Fast forward to the late '80s and NASA was finally able to produce photographic evidence of the ozone hole. That led to the policy changes of 1989 banning CFC's which has in turn led to the shrinking of the ozone hole.

But go ahead, keep believing that global warming isn't a problem. It's not like I could convince you of anything using logic an reason.

If you think this rate of warming is normal, why don't you find another time in history in which the climate changed as rapidly as it is today. You can't do it. It's not possible because it does not exist. Sure, it has been hotter on earth than it is today. It has also been colder. But the climate has NEVER changed this rapidly without an accompanying mass extinction.

[1] www.scientificamerican.com...
[2]


Absolutely. There has never been a doctor that defrauded an insurance company for monetary gain...lmao

Horrible analogy


So let's say you decide that doctor is a fraud. You go to a another doctor, he says the same thing, then another. Pretty soon you've gone to ten doctors and they all say you have cancer and it can be treated but you need to act fast. Are they all frauds?


I think your analogy greatly exaggerates the amount of agreement within the scientific community. It is not even close to 100%.

I would also point out the term "doctor" you use is misleading, as well. I wouldn't see a podiatrist, and assume he was an expert on internal medicine.

Last point, if 5 doctors prescibed the same "brand" of drug, but they were all on the same payroll, I would definitely question their bias.



posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: neo96
Climate literacy

Begins with the fact the climate is a perpetual motion engine.

Not doing anything new, and has been in a constant state of change since Gensis( If you believe that sort).

People running around like a bunch of chittle littles screaming the sky is falling serves no real purpose.

Other than to spread fear, and paranoia.

And those charts are meaningless.

A snapshot out of billions of years.


Are you a climate scientist? More than likely you are not. I'm not. Most everybody else on this site isn't.

Climate scientists, who study this topic on a daily basis, mostly all agree that the climate is warming and it is caused by humans. [1] You have zero evidence to back up your claim that everything will be ok, while on the other side there are mountains of data to back up climate change caused by humanity.

Let's put together a scenario. Your doctor tells you that you have cancer. He says that with treatment you can reverse the disease and live a happy life. Your response is to tell the doctor he doesn't know what he is talking about and that your body has been fine your entire life. You tell him that your body is constantly changing and there is nothing to worry about.

I don't think you would really do that so why do you do the same thing when it comes to climate science? The professionals who are educated are telling us there is a problem and some members of the population are pretending they are the actual educated ones? Doesn't make any sense.

You are probably too young to remember this, but in the 1970's scientists first alerted the public about the Ozone hole. That news was met in pretty much the exact same way global warming was. Companies who manufactured or used CFC's fought back and sought to discredit the scientific data. Hell, they used pretty much the same arguments such as "There is no way humans can affect the environment" and "We have been using this forever and there have never been any issues." Fast forward to the late '80s and NASA was finally able to produce photographic evidence of the ozone hole. That led to the policy changes of 1989 banning CFC's which has in turn led to the shrinking of the ozone hole.

But go ahead, keep believing that global warming isn't a problem. It's not like I could convince you of anything using logic an reason.

If you think this rate of warming is normal, why don't you find another time in history in which the climate changed as rapidly as it is today. You can't do it. It's not possible because it does not exist. Sure, it has been hotter on earth than it is today. It has also been colder. But the climate has NEVER changed this rapidly without an accompanying mass extinction.

[1] www.scientificamerican.com...
[2]


Absolutely. There has never been a doctor that defrauded an insurance company for monetary gain...lmao

Horrible analogy


So let's say you decide that doctor is a fraud. You go to a another doctor, he says the same thing, then another. Pretty soon you've gone to ten doctors and they all say you have cancer and it can be treated but you need to act fast. Are they all frauds?


I think your analogy greatly exaggerates the amount of agreement within the scientific community. It is not even close to 100%.

I would also point out the term "doctor" you use is misleading, as well. I wouldn't see a podiatrist, and assume he was an expert on internal medicine.

Last point, if 5 doctors prescibed the same "brand" of drug, but they were all on the same payroll, I would definitely question their bias.


You're taking my comment a bit pedantically mate. The previous poster that you replied to was the one using the doctor analogy, I was just backing it up. I wasn't specifying what kind of doctor because it was just a quick throw away comment lol. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming due to the burning of fossil fuels. We should listen to them. The few that do not are probably quacks.



posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: neo96
Climate literacy

Begins with the fact the climate is a perpetual motion engine.

Not doing anything new, and has been in a constant state of change since Gensis( If you believe that sort).

People running around like a bunch of chittle littles screaming the sky is falling serves no real purpose.

Other than to spread fear, and paranoia.

And those charts are meaningless.

A snapshot out of billions of years.


Are you a climate scientist? More than likely you are not. I'm not. Most everybody else on this site isn't.

Climate scientists, who study this topic on a daily basis, mostly all agree that the climate is warming and it is caused by humans. [1] You have zero evidence to back up your claim that everything will be ok, while on the other side there are mountains of data to back up climate change caused by humanity.

Let's put together a scenario. Your doctor tells you that you have cancer. He says that with treatment you can reverse the disease and live a happy life. Your response is to tell the doctor he doesn't know what he is talking about and that your body has been fine your entire life. You tell him that your body is constantly changing and there is nothing to worry about.

I don't think you would really do that so why do you do the same thing when it comes to climate science? The professionals who are educated are telling us there is a problem and some members of the population are pretending they are the actual educated ones? Doesn't make any sense.

You are probably too young to remember this, but in the 1970's scientists first alerted the public about the Ozone hole. That news was met in pretty much the exact same way global warming was. Companies who manufactured or used CFC's fought back and sought to discredit the scientific data. Hell, they used pretty much the same arguments such as "There is no way humans can affect the environment" and "We have been using this forever and there have never been any issues." Fast forward to the late '80s and NASA was finally able to produce photographic evidence of the ozone hole. That led to the policy changes of 1989 banning CFC's which has in turn led to the shrinking of the ozone hole.

But go ahead, keep believing that global warming isn't a problem. It's not like I could convince you of anything using logic an reason.

If you think this rate of warming is normal, why don't you find another time in history in which the climate changed as rapidly as it is today. You can't do it. It's not possible because it does not exist. Sure, it has been hotter on earth than it is today. It has also been colder. But the climate has NEVER changed this rapidly without an accompanying mass extinction.

[1] www.scientificamerican.com...
[2]


Absolutely. There has never been a doctor that defrauded an insurance company for monetary gain...lmao

Horrible analogy


So let's say you decide that doctor is a fraud. You go to a another doctor, he says the same thing, then another. Pretty soon you've gone to ten doctors and they all say you have cancer and it can be treated but you need to act fast. Are they all frauds?


I think your analogy greatly exaggerates the amount of agreement within the scientific community. It is not even close to 100%.

I would also point out the term "doctor" you use is misleading, as well. I wouldn't see a podiatrist, and assume he was an expert on internal medicine.

Last point, if 5 doctors prescibed the same "brand" of drug, but they were all on the same payroll, I would definitely question their bias.


That is a reasonable stance to take, so why don't we just look at independent scientific evidence instead, as I posted above?



posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Humans use a gazillion amount of energy these days. That translates to a lot of heat. Maybe a 0.5 C increase compared to no energy usage.



posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Robotswilltakeover
CO2 makes plants grow more. The more CO2, the more life on earth. It's plain and simple. If it gets a little hotter, that's fine, it was a lot hotter with a lot more CO2 before, and there was even more life on earth. CO2 is the opposite of a pollutant.

CO2 levels are still dangerously low at 400 ppm. They should be at least 1200 ppm. We could burn all the fossil fuels in the world and it still wouldn't come close to 1000 ppm, probably only about 500 ppm.

Sadly, however, the sun is the main force behind climate change, and even if we bring CO2 levels up, the sun could still dim, and most humans would die soon after.


1000 ppm CO2 will seriously make people's head ache. Even if the Jurassic CO2 was only about 450 ppm. When you go from outdoor into house you instantly feel head hurt because of heightened CO2 level.







 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join