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.

 

Time to Ask WHAT TEMPERATURE IS PERFECT for the average on Earth?

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
careful when your dealing with a mathemagician lol





posted on May, 10 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Phage is his/her own worse enemy.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Although Zelon's hypothesis is a bit more in depth and different, there have been peer-reviewed research papers which have linked geomagnetic field variations, or geomagnetic jerks aka changes in Earth's magnetic field, with cooling events/climate change in the past.

Climate determinism or Geomagnetic determinism?

Possible impact of the Earth's magnetic field on the history of ancient civilizations

The Mayans: Climate determinism or geomagnetic determinism?



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Zelun

Although Zelon's hypothesis is a bit more in depth and different, there have been peer-reviewed research papers which have linked geomagnetic field variations, or geomagnetic jerks aka changes in Earth's magnetic field, with cooling events/climate change in the past.

Climate determinism or Geomagnetic determinism?

Possible impact of the Earth's magnetic field on the history of ancient civilizations

The Mayans: Climate determinism or geomagnetic determinism?


Excellent!

That is data we can discuss that isn't meaningless.

Yes indeed his own worst enemy. We use to eat out of his hands!



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Let's simplify this shall we.

Climate scientists are unsure exactly how much impact humans have on the climate. But more are coming around to the fact that humans have SOME impact. Some think we have a bit, and some believe humans have a greater impact than we realize.

Regardless, they are not positive. So OP and anyone else really.. how do YOU know if humans are actually impacting our climate? Answer: You don't. Unless you actually believe you know more than all the scientists who actually study our climate endlessly.. (hint: you don't).

Personally I think humans have a fairly significant impact, because the rise of temperatures coinciding with the nations of the world going their own own industrial revolutions is far too coincidental. On a planet where climate change is often measured of 10s of thousands of years, we should pay attention to the change of climate in a span of a mere 150 or so years. Maybe humans have a slighter impact that we think, but.. maybe not. And is it worth the risk to ignore it? Our kids probably don't think that it is.

Temps are rising. Ancient ice is melting over decades, depleting steadily. Oil companies would love for people to think there is no problem - they still have trillions to make after all. So it's hilarious to me when I hear about a clean energy "scam" agenda. If it is, I'd rather be scammed by someone producing clean energy, rather than by oil companies.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit


Let's simplify this shall we.

Yes, let's.


Climate scientists are unsure exactly how much impact humans have on the climate. But more are coming around to the fact that humans have SOME impact. Some think we have a bit, and some believe humans have a greater impact than we realize.

You just left the realm of science by stating something scientists are unsure of as a fact. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

But we can also talk about how much "how much" matters. I'd be willing to bet you ate cyanide today. Most foods contain a little. Are you dead yet? No? Then "how much" matters. The amount you ate was likely able to be calculated as to the number of molecules... not enough to hurt anyone. Likewise, the contribution of carbon dioxide toward any climate shift may well be so minuscule as to be irrelevant. As you said, we don't know.


Regardless, they are not positive. So OP and anyone else really.. how do YOU know if humans are actually impacting our climate? Answer: You don't. Unless you actually believe you know more than all the scientists who actually study our climate endlessly.. (hint: you don't).

No, none of us can accurately state with any certainty what the optimal average temperature of the planet is. However, we do have some indicators. Human population has historically exploded during warmer periods and stagnated during colder periods. That in itself indicates that the optimal temperature for the planet may well be higher than we are experiencing. I placed my guess at around 60°F, a couple of degrees above present, for that express reason.

But that's the point. No, the OP doesn't know, the scientists don't really know, I don't know, you don't know, no one knows exactly what impacts humans are having on the planet. They do have some... so do dandelions and oak trees and sardines. Every species in some way affects its environment, To expect us not to is completely silly. The real question is, are we affecting the environment in an overly dangerous manner via carbon dioxide? To know that, one must also know what the optimal temperature range is. For all we actually know, a warmer climate will be conducive to natural processes, not harmful.

That means you could be supporting a worse environment. You don't know, because you just admitted you don't even know what the optimal temperature is.


Oil companies would love for people to think there is no problem - they still have trillions to make after all. So it's hilarious to me when I hear about a clean energy "scam" agenda. If it is, I'd rather be scammed by someone producing clean energy, rather than by oil companies.

Well, that's easy enough to accomplish. Just stop supporting these evil oil companies. Stop driving or using any transportation that gets energy from fossil fuels. Stop purchasing anything that uses plastic. If you do not live near a hydroelectric plant, a wind farm, or a nuclear plant, pull the breaker in your house. These oil companies exist in order to sell energy to those who want it. If you don't want it, stop buying it.

I don't think we can get much simpler than that.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker




The extent to me on how much impact we have on the warming is kind of moot.

It is not to the "carbon tax" people.



Clean renewable energy can make cleaner air and sever our reliance on asshole countries for their oil.

yeah but then the S&*thole countries aspire to be a$$hole countries and have their natural resouces(fossil fuels) exploited by the man
I agree we should lessen our reliance on a$$hole countries.

Should we start with canada?


Why start with any country when the carbon crisis is supposedly a hoax?


That was a joke and the Carbon Crisis too. CO is pollution CO2 IS plant food and the NASA study shows CO2 releases energy all the way to space. That study stated that CO2 along with NO pollution mostly from combustion and other sources (Nitrous Oxide or Laughing gas at the Dentist office) spike thru to Space releasing energy.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

The science was never settled.

One thing i do know is the statistics that I live by every day at my job evaluating POLLUTION that does matter, do not lie. The Temp Data is not even fairly collected as TheRedneck pointed out in this thread and yet they are pushing obviously what have already proven to be FAILED COMPUTER MODELS using that data.

On top of that they are calling for 1-3C change in the temps when Earth swings a whole lot more than that historically and even daily we see that when the Sun goes down it gets cooler. I reported the range of Temps on Earth in C here. -89 C to plus 47 C.

What will 1- 3 C mean if we did cause that much (and we don't IMO)? That is as TheRedneck pointed out, not much at all.

Think for yourself but study more than you have because you are using rinse and repeat lies. Who is that helping when people point out it was a lie with corroborating data and you keep pounding it?



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I like any where between 0 and 18 Degrees but women always seem to turn it up between 21-25 which is too hot.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
67 degrees

And that’s coming from a person who already lives in the best place on earth San Diego



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: MConnalley
67 degrees

And that’s coming from a person who already lives in the best place on earth San Diego


So far between 65-68 F is the winner.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

And that's about 10 degrees F warmer than the present.

I'm thinking right now about the ramifications of a 10 degree shift in temperatures. During the winter here we average about 30°F for lows and about 50°F for highs, with the extremes running from the single digits to 70°-ish. Adding in 10° would mean we would see very few pipe-bursting temperatures, but a few days when it would actually be warm. That sounds like a positive to me.

Now, looking at the summer months, we range from the mid 70s to the mid 90s, with usually a week or so in the triple digits. Extreme cold in our summer months is along the line of 60°F. So yeah, that would make summer much harder to deal with. However, we have this thing called "air conditioning" that tends to cool the air when it is switched on. The summer cooling bills would then increase (a bad thing), but the winter heating bills would decrease (a good thing).

The growing season would lengthen considerably. Mid April is when we pass frost danger, and a 10° difference would move that back to mid March. We would have a similar situation in the fall, so that's an extra 2 months of growing season; 8 months instead of 6. That means two crops per year for most things instead of one, doubling the food supply. The one problem would be the summer heat, but really, plants seem to do OK in high heat as long as there's plenty of water. Since rain is caused by a differential of temperatures instead of the absolute temperature, I see no reason why a 10°F shift would affect the amount of precipitation. If anything, the evaporative cycle would be increased, due to an increased ability of the air to hold moisture and increased evaporative speed.

So it looks to me like a 10°F increase would be both a positive and a negative. The culture would have to change slightly; the Mexican Siesta exists because they deal with similar temperatures and the heat of the day is NOT the time to be performing physical labor. We would likely adopt something similar. Even now, during heat waves, employers can be sued for trying to force people to work overly hard during extreme heat conditions without sufficient time to cool off and sufficient water available. Most contractors during the summer months will start at sunup, work hard until the sun is high, take a long lunch, piddle around, then get back to work at a slower pace as the sun gets lower in the sky.

One notable thing about what I mentioned above is that the increased plant growth would serve to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, all other things being equal. So just the lifestyle we would be forced to adopt would serve as a negative feedback to any future temperature rise, assuming carbon dioxide is indeed the primary culprit (something I am not yet convinced of).

And we would all be more comfortable, at least, according to the responses thus far.

That's at 10°F. The gloom and doom forecasts are less than that, 4°F at most.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yikes, Augustus might not be too happy. Still a way to go to get to 98.6 F.


Me being of German decent primarily with some British Isles mixed, I would probably not like 10 F hotter in the summer, but I would love it in the winter. Maybe I could get some Peaches in my yard to grow then, even Citrus or Pomegranate. Those would be nice. If it were a stable 67 or so would be nice except as stated earlier, the diversity in wildlife and flora would go down.

edit on 11-5-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Global warming wouldn't be an issue to anyone if Europe had oil wells. But Europe has no oil; so it's an expensive import for them. Naturally, they want non Petro power as a result, but that is expensive as well. So they are trying to force the rest of the world to help build out the renewable energy industry to help share their costs.

If France and Germany had oil under them they'd be drilling. They don't and so they want to tax you so that your cheap Petro can help pay for the fact that they have none.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I don't forget the Sun, but I know that its output has not changed enough to account for the rise in temperatures.
...


Yes you do, and you have... Even when there was all of a sudden a pause in the increase in global temperatures the sun's activity went to a low not experienced for a long time.

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Or the fact that even back in 1978 French astronomers were postulating that as our Solar System was going to move into an interstellar cloud/new region of the Local Fluff, that it could dramatically change Earth's climate. which it's probably why the same is happening in other planets in the Solar System. Which at first it was thought this encounter wouldn't happen for 50,000 years + But we learned differently a few years back.

Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter

Even the interstellar wind changed directions a few years back.

You ignore the fact that Earth is undergoing many massive changes which have nothing to do with the anthropogenic addition of atmospheric CO2 which is a whooping 0.0034% of the total volume in Earth's atmosphere.

Molten iron river discovered speeding beneath Russia and Canada

You also ignore the fact that in the Troposphere it is "water vapor" which accounts for ~97% of the greenhouse effect in the form of warming. Or the fact that Earth began warming ~150 years before the start of the industrial revolution, and ~260 years before the height of the industrial revolution.

You also ignore the phrase "correlation doesn't mean causation" when it comes to "climate change and atmospheric CO2 increase." Or the fact that on average temperatures have increased 800 years before atmospheric CO2 increases, and that when Earth warms it releases massive volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You also ignore the fact that we have been receiving more cosmic rays and x-rays at a time when Earth's magnetic field keeps weakening.

Stratospheric Radiation on Earth Continues to Increase.

Radiation Clouds at Aviation Altitudes (and It's Link to Climate Change.)

Cosmic Rays, especially X-Rays, The Solar System is Receiving Have been Increasing

You also have ignored, among others, from the start the fact that Earth has not been the only planet that has been undergoing dramatic climate change.

The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

Climate Change Occurring in Every Planet in Solar System

Or the fact that is continuing to happen and astronomers/astrophysicists don't know why.

Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?

You, and the rest of the AGW crowd also ingore that even Obama's EPA's chief had to admit that the whole "anthropogenic CO2 claim is about "reinventing a global economy" and not really about "saving the Earth and mankind."

EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'



You do ignore a lot for convenience and because you can never admit being wrong.

This is Why it is Not Possible that CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.

Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

continued below.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I wrote the following in 2009.

The following is a research paper which was published in 1978.


Title:
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Authors:
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation:
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1978
Category:
Astrophysics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
....................
Abstract
....................
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Although some papers indicate certain interstellar clouds have caused glaciations, it is also known that many regions of space have more plasma, more charged particles, and are even warmer than other regions of space where the Solar System is in, kown as the LIC. These extra charged particles, plasma, and gases alongside the warmer regions change the dynamcs of the Solar System, and in turn change the climate of all planets with an atmosphere.

Around 2002-2003 NASA, and ESA announced that more interstellar dust was entering the Solar System, and they also stated that we would encounter denser, and denser clouds which would exponentially increase each year until 2012, when we would enter the densest part of the cloud.


ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, August 18, 2003
Source: Artemis Society

Until ten years ago, most astronomers did not believe stardust could enter our Solar System. Then ESA's Ulysses spaceprobe discovered minute stardust particles leaking through the Sun's magnetic shield, into the realm of Earth and the other planets. Now, the same spaceprobe has shown that a flood of dusty particles is heading our way.
...........
What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.

Scientists believe that this is due to the way in which the polarity changed during solar maximum. Instead of reversing completely, flipping north to south, the Sun's magnetic poles have only rotated at halfway and are now more or less lying sideways along the Sun's equator. This weaker configuration of the magnetic shield is letting in two to three times more stardust than at the end of the 1990s. Moreover, this influx could increase by as much as ten times until the end of the current solar cycle in 2012.

www.spaceref.com...

Because the magnetic field of the Sun is weaker, more interstellar dust has been entering the Solar System, but at the same time the region in which the Solar System is moving into has intestellar dust that gets denser, and denser the more the Solar Systm moves into it.

When I reported this information the first time some years back I also stated that if more interstellar dust was entering the Solar System, then more charged particles, plasma, and gases, which particles are much smaller than that of dust, were also entering the Solar System.

At least there was one member who was skeptical, and said there was no proof that more charged particles were entering the Solar System, but now we know that my assertion was true.


Like a wounded Starship Enterprise, our solar system's natural shields are faltering, letting in a flood of cosmic rays. The sun's recent listlessness is resulting in record-high radiation levels that pose a hazard to both human and robotic space missions.

Galactic cosmic rays are speeding charged particles that include protons and heavier atomic nuclei. They come from outside the solar system, though their exact sources are still being debated.

www.newscientist.com...

To make things worse, the Earth's magnetic field has also been weakening since 1840. Some people might call it a coincidence, since this is about the time when the climate of the Earth was gettng warmer, and warmer. But it is not a coincidence, and the fact that the Sun's activity until 3 years ago, and for about 60-100 years was at the highest it had been for more than 1,000 years, is what caused the warming. Apart from the fct that as the Earth goes into warming periods, the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases, and makes it warmer, and the warmer it gets the levels of water vapor continue to increase causing a feedback loop.

This feedback loop has been wrongly attributed to CO2, meanwhile the main and worse greehouse gas is in fact water vapor, but since 99.9% of it is natural the policymakers, politicians, and environmenalists decided instead to blame it on CO2, and claim it was becase of humans, just so they can implement more laws to cotrol us, and in order for them to justify new taxes.

We actually know that in the Troposphere, which is the atmospheric layer that is closest to the surface, and is the one that controls the weather, as well as the climate on the surface of the Earth, water vapor cotributes from 95% - 98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2, AND the rest of the greenhouse gases contribute from 2% - 5% of the greenhouse effect.

To get back on topic.


Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
John Roach
for National Geographic News

May 11, 2006

Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.

The finding could help scientists better understand the way Earth's magnetic poles reverse.

The planet's magnetic field flips—north becomes south and vice versa—on average every 300,000 years. However, the actual time between reversals varies widely.

The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.

Since 1840, when accurate measures of the intensity were first made, the field strength has declined by about 5 percent per century.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



edit on 11-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and comment.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   
It was discovered in 2009-2010 that The Earth seemed to be moving towards the million degree cloud of interstellar dust, sooner than expected, and we would be completely within it within 100 years. Or ~90 years from now. We have been encountering small wisps of this new region of the Local Fluff which could explain all the "climate changes" occurring in every planet and moon in our Solar System.


Ribbon at edge of our solar system: Will the Sun enter a million-degree cloud of interstellar gas?

Date:
May 24, 2010
Source:
Space Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences
Summary:
Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon? A U.S.-Polish team of scientists suggests that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect due to the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...

Ribbon at edge of our solar system: Will the Sun enter a million-degree cloud of interstellar gas?


edit on 11-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Thank you , those posts are helpful to the facts.

Phage will live in infamy on this ATS thread after we quote NASA and Nat Geo to show that the major climate impacts are from things other than CO2. Oh he will still try to preach the BS again you can count on it.I have had to deal with his spin on every thread I have created about alternative fuel Car my Alma mater created and climate discussions. I have researched this extensively and quoted major players of Climate. He still SHILLS when I quote Scientist like the ones you added to this discussion with major issues that would correct the MSM lies on Man Made climate change.

Yes, we have some minuscule part in climate but a much bigger impact on water pollution and poisoning the air soils in some places. That CO2 would be called a pollutant is ridiculous. This discussion about a lie on man's causation's is taking us away from real pollution issues in the scientific community and feeding the distrust of Science we that we are in huge danger of not being believed anymore. That is why I do these threads to counter the actual science deniers like that one. I welcome the cherry picked data because it is easy to see it is cherry picked. Using a small range of data over a small range of time for a HUGE range of probabilities is lunacy.

With cars that run on water being suppressed, the Solar output recorded and the failed Climate models, I am convinced that some people will continue to believe that mankind is warming the planet significantly lie because of paid shills and idiots.

Good people like you E U are willing to read the data and share it for whatever it is and give the ones who choose to be on the losing side of History their facts they want to try to ignore.



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

They must be trying to counter you EU . Nat Geo people probably hid that page you quoted. IDK. It is a strange coincidence you are making excellent progress with your theory and that disappears. The link is down.

Here is another on cosmic rays and effects on the Earths Geo Magnetic field.

www.esa.int...

A Harvard study on the magnetic field and Cosmic Rays



adsabs.harvard.edu...

go to "Summary of Present Position", Item C for the observation Harvard Scientist gave:
"Undoubted relationships between Cosmic and Solar Rays to geomagnetic activity on Earth."

edit on 12-5-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Actually, there are many correlations between your proposal and ElectricUniverse's. The earth's magnetic field does not just divert the solar wind; it will divert any magnetic field moving through earth's proximity. Gaseous space clouds can contain magnetic fields as well, and the effect of this would be to change the overall 'push' the solar winds have on the planet's magnetic field, without decreasing the amount of charged particles. A magnetic disturbance from beyond the sun would serve to increase the distortion, while one from the opposite direction of the sun would serve to decrease the distortion.

It is this distortion that causes the Aurora Borealis, or Northern Lights, as charged gases from the upper levels of the atmosphere interact with the magnetic flux lines.

That got me to thinking: back when I was young (when dinosaurs walked the planet), the Aurora Borealis was a spectacle that was never expected to be seen... we're just too far south. No one here ever expected to see it even traveling, it was so far away. It was something that one had to go to Alaska or northern Canada to see. Yet, since then, I have heard reports of places farther ad farther south that have glimpsed the Aurora Borealis.

Now, that's anecdotal; anecdotal is not scientific. So I looked online to see if anyone else had noticed this. As it turns out, they have!

The Northern lights, it seems, have moved further south and have been visible from countries including Germany and Denmark. So what exactly is causing this spectacle? And how long will it last?

That's from August 5, 2010, reported by the BBC... not exactly a right-wing organization.

That, in turn, made me consider what would cause the Aurora Borealis to move south... or, more properly, to spread out and cover more area. My first consideration was the strength of the earth's magnetic field... we know it varies and has actually been slowly weakening. But would a weaker magnetic field do this? Actually, no, it would not. The Aurora Borealis is caused by the distortion in the magnetic fields, and a weaker planetary field would yield less distortion and therefore less lights. A stronger field would yield greater lights and, since the stronger field would have more magnetic flux lines, a wider coverage area.

What about a stronger solar wind? Yes, that would do it, as the distortion in the planetary field would increase. But we also know that the solar wind's magnetic field has not increased in absolute value from the data Phage gave me... the most that could be happening would be a higher magnetic differential with respect to time. Another magnetic component, however, could be responsible.

Now, at this time all of this is just the ramblings of one crazy redneck... but it is something I think bears investigating.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join