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.

 

CO2 AND YOU keeping things in perspective.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ah. Unknown cycle. It must be something unknown. Because, even though the CO2 models fit, it can't be that. It must be something else. But I don't know what.

Confirmation bias.

edit on 5/1/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


There was no cold period in the 70s. There was a slight cooling.

There is no warm period now, It's just a slight warming. See how silly that sounds?

My records show the 1970s and 1980s experienced temperatures on average 2 degrees below the 1950s. Today we are about 2 degrees warmer than the 1950s. How is 2 degrees cooler not significant but 2 degrees warmer disastrous?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Unknown cycle. It must be something unknown.

Nice attempt to put words in my mouth, Phage.

We both know I did not say that.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




There is no warm period now, It's just a slight warming.
It's not slight.


Today we are about 2 degrees warmer than the 1950s. How is 2 degrees cooler not significant but 2 degrees warmer disastrous?
It's not a disaster (yet), but that trend includes the cooling (which was not 2º).
edit on 5/1/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck




There is no warm period now, It's just a slight warming.
It's not slight.


Today we are about 2 degrees warmer than the 1950s. How is 2 degrees cooler not significant but 2 degrees warmer disastrous?
Because that trend includes the cooling (which was not 2º).


Wrong, even the IPCC says 1.33 F or .74 C in the last 100 years.. that is longer than 1950 if you were wondering

edit on 727stk19 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


It's not slight.

It comes directly from NOAA data, Phage. Are you saying NOAA is wrong?


It's not a disaster (yet), but that trend includes the cooling (which was not 2º).

OK, I am not going to try and argue with you about direct observational data. Do you, or do you not, accept NOAA data?

And yes, I noticed the (yet) comment... I rest my case. I really suggest you try to get a glimpse of Tinkerbell painting... you are going to give yourself a heart attack worrying about this fantasy. Trust me, based on experience: heart attacks suck. A lot.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck




There is no warm period now, It's just a slight warming.
It's not slight.


Today we are about 2 degrees warmer than the 1950s. How is 2 degrees cooler not significant but 2 degrees warmer disastrous?
Because that trend includes the cooling (which was not 2º).


Wrong even the IPCC say 1.33 F or .74 c in the last 100 years.. that is longer than 1950 if you were wondering

Can you say that in English?



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




OK, I am not going to try and argue with you about direct observational data. Do you, or do you not, accept NOAA data?

I accept various observational surface temperature models. They show a warming trend consistent with climate models based on radiative forcing due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

What is your model based upon?
edit on 5/1/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I accept various observational surface temperature models.

That's not an answer. Do you accept NOAA observations?


What is your model based upon?

It is not a model. It makes no predictions. It is a compilation of NOAA historical daily data for my area. You have seen it. At the time, you had no issue with the data; now you apparently do.

When I have a model based on it, I'll let you know. As of now, the only predictions I have are SWAGs... insufficient for any kind of detailed analysis. It appears to be a sinusoidal waveform. A model will verify or dispute that.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




That's not an answer.
I don't answer leading questions.


It is not a model. It makes no predictions.
Need I quote you in another thread?

edit on 5/1/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I don't answer leading questions.

What is leading about asking you if you accept data from a specific source?

A leading question would be something like: Do you pick and choose data you accept based on what it shows?

Ironically, it is starting to appear that is a germane question.


Need I quote you in another thread?

Feel free Phage. In that thread I openly stated my initial interpretation of the data showing a long-term sinusoidal waveform. That's an initial interpretation, not a prediction, and not based on any sort of model or simulation. Now, if and when I run a detailed FFT analysis on the data, that will provide some predictions based on several assumptions I will properly disclose at that time.

So if you want to emphasize your lack of understanding about what data, models, simulations, analysis, and predictions even are, please, knock yourself out!

TheRedneck



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




What is leading about asking you if you accept data from a specific source?
Fine. NOAA's surface temperature models are included in those I accept. Since they show little variance between them I have no problem with that.


Now, if and when I run a detailed FFT analysis on the data, that will provide some predictions based on several assumptions I will properly disclose at that time.
As I recall you made a prediction based on history and a rather poor polynomial curve fit. As I recall, I pointed out that didn't seem like a very good approach. As I recall, you made another prediction in a more recent thread.

edit on 5/1/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Fine. NOAA's surface temperature models are included in those I accept. Since they show little variance between them I have no problem with that.

See? that wasn't so hard.

NOAA's surface temperature readings show about a 2 degree drop between the 1950s and the 1970s/1980s for this area. They show about the same amount of rise from that same 1950s baseline. Therefore, the cooling during the 1970s/1980s for this area appear to be as significant as the present warming.

No 'gotcha.'


As I recall you made a prediction based on history and a rather poor polynomial curve fit. As I recall, I pointed out that didn't seem like a very good approach. As I recall, you made another prediction in a more recent thread.

You recall correctly, except that what you are calling a prediction is not really a prediction based on modelling. It was (and is; I stand behind it until shown otherwise) a rough estimate based on initial visual graphical trends. If memory serves, I believe that I expect the temperature rise to peak by 2030 or something like that? Once I get time to run the full numerical analysis, I will have a model and I can make predictions. Until then, everything is just a SWAG.

I don't recall making an additional similar statement elsewhere, although I may have repeated that one.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

I've seen plenty of "them" and I'm well old enough to be cynical. But not cynical enough to think that education is a bad thing or that there is a limit to it.


I have spent years researching food chemistry and metabolism now, I know that what I learn needs to be properly interpreted and has limitations as to use. I find lots of people that consider themselves experts because they went to school and got degrees know way less than I do on the subject. But then again, if I were to take specialized college courses, I would be up into a masters degree in metabolism with what I have learned probably, but I am too picky, I do not automatically accept consensus of the day as god. I also incorporate ancestral eating habits, genetics, and study pharmacology to try to hack what it does or is supposed to do. I do not trust pill pushers. My biggest worry is being called an expert because then I would start believing it and not spend a thousand hours a year studying new research each year. I am and always will be a student, learning from everyone and analyzing everything I hear, see, and read. I have learned many professions in my life, I would be considered an expert in some of them, but I am still only a student with an insatiable desire to learn new things and compare them to what I already know.

Never have been that great at spelling though, especially since I started to study the basis of many languages. Still can't speak in another language, but I am getting better at identifying what is being presented in many of them. Science is the language I study the most, knowing how to interpret the evidence is more important to me than studying something like Spanish or Italian.

It is kind of cool to relate the chemistry used to paint a car with the chemistry used in our body to form bone and teeth.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage


I don't answer leading questions.

What is leading about asking you if you accept data from a specific source?

A leading question would be something like: Do you pick and choose data you accept based on what it shows?

Ironically, it is starting to appear that is a germane question.


Need I quote you in another thread?

Feel free Phage. In that thread I openly stated my initial interpretation of the data showing a long-term sinusoidal waveform. That's an initial interpretation, not a prediction, and not based on any sort of model or simulation. Now, if and when I run a detailed FFT analysis on the data, that will provide some predictions based on several assumptions I will properly disclose at that time.

So if you want to emphasize your lack of understanding about what data, models, simulations, analysis, and predictions even are, please, knock yourself out!

TheRedneck


You're wasting your breath.

Years ago on ATS somebody asked me what would happen with increased CO2. I told them I would expect increased plant biomass and the global warming cultists laughed at me. Then a couple years later studies proved it to be true. I've said for years that building with more wood and cultivating forests is the best carbon sink, but they won't listen. A carbon tax is the answer to them.

It's rinse and repeat. The same morons screaming about mercury 30 years ago managed to get mercury bulbs mandated. They don't, and will never, understand the hypocrisy.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Maybe, maybe not.

I won't ever change Phage's mind; I know that. The best I can possibly hope for is to keep him honest with his presentations. But I keep thinking back to when I was first introduced to ATS by the sheer number of links to it every time I tried to research anything remotely conspiratorial... no one here knew there was this sometimes semi-sane fellow from Alabama reading. Likewise, I have no idea who is reading, be they members being silent for now or lurkers.

Those are who I post for. They will be the ones who will make the final decision. I want them to hear both sides of the arguments, so hopefully they will make the right decisions.

ETA: They tried to mandate mercury bulbs (aka the "curly-cue" CFLs). They failed, thanks to LED technology. Compared to CFLs, LED bulbs last longer, do not significantly dim over time, have no problem with self-starting, do not produce high-voltage electrostatic fields, produce cleaner light, and use similar amounts of power to produce that light. They now are extremely competitive with other bulbs so far as price is concerned. Anyone still using CFLs should strongly consider replacing them with LEDs.

TheRedneck

edit on 5/1/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: madmac5150
Eliminate flatulent livestock.

The farting cows cause global warming.

Meanwhile, in N. Idaho, we have yet to hit 70 degrees.

Maybe, we send the farting cows north...

Please do, I know it's been bloody cold here in Ontario Canada the last couple days.... plus we love burgers and steaks



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in the past 150 years. That's a 43% increase due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The rate of increase has accelerated since the measurements started, from about 0.7 ppm per year in the late 1950s to 2.1 ppm per year during the last 10 years.
www.esrl.noaa.gov...

It's coming from us.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Wrong... During warming cycles atmospheric CO2 concentration also increase naturally. The Earth began warming in the early 1600. That's 150 years BEFORE the start of the industrial revolution, and it's about 260 years before the height of the industrial revolution.



The warming started waaaay before CO2 concentrations began increasing. As the Earth has been warming it also releases CO2 to the atmosphere naturally.

The contribution of mankind to atmospheric CO2 is a lot less than 0.01%.
If I remember correctly the contribution of mankind to atmospheric CO2 was something around 0.00034%- 0.0004%

The following graph is from 2009.




edit on 1-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add graph and link.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Here is another graph showing "anthropogenic (man made) contribution of yearly atmospheric CO2, and natural yearly contribution to atmospheric CO2.


www.ncpathinktank.org/pdfs/Global-Warming-Primer-updated-reduced-size.pdf



edit on 1-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Oh, and one more thing. After that paper was published there has been debates as to the life time of atmospheric CO2 molecules/residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.


The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is …. 33 years?
Posted on September 3, 2014 by Roger Andrews

By Roger Andrews

An important consideration in estimating future greenhouse warming risks is how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Here I present the results of a simple mass balance model that provides a near-perfect fit between CO2 emissions and observed atmospheric CO2 using a CO2 residence time of 33 years. This, however, is significantly longer than 36 peer reviewed estimates that cluster between 5 and 15 years and much shorter than IPCCs estimates of 100 years or longer, hence the question mark in the title.


...


Link

So, despite "claims" from the IPCC that CO2 molecules stay in the atmosphere for 100 years, many peer reviewed research papers show that in reality the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is an average from 5 years to 15 years.




edit on 1-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt.

edit on 1-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join