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.

 

Study Finds Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Basically zero

page: 1
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+31 more 
posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The science is in. Global warming, as much as it is happening at all, is a natural phenomenon that man has had very little effect on. So what is causing it?

Cloud cover. According to the research, a 1% increase in low cloud cover results in a temperature decrease of 0.11%. This pattern is repeatable and the expected results have been far more accurate than the global warming models that rely on CO2 for warming.

So how much warming are we responsible for?


During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C


It's interesting that this study came out at just about the same time that AOC's chief of staff was telling democratic presidential candidate, Jay Insley, that the green new deal was less about climate change and more about completely changing the economy. Link.

So can we say the science is settled now? AGW is practically non-existant. Turn on those gas generators folks, you're not saving the planet by not doing so.



+16 more 
posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
It’s been Debunked

I saw this on a other forum and it’s been heavily criticised, the referencing alone wouldn’t scrape you through a basic first year college essay.

Now you can read the above link if you want or you can ignore it, man made global warming and climate change is real, it is a established scientific fact and not one I am personally interested in debating because at this stage if you still refuse to believe the science there is little I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise
edit on 14-7-2019 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2019 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)


+25 more 
posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Oh, I'm not surprised it's been criticized. The truth is, it's accurate. But there's too much money to be made saying that man is causing the climate to change. There's also this study which aims at clean air laws as the culprit. It shows a very similar effect. Who would have thunk it? You reduce sunlight getting to the surface and surface temperatures drop. You increase the amount of sunlight getting to the surface and temperatures rise.
edit on 14-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)


+14 more 
posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Well, this famous, Nobel laureate, Climatologist, disagrees.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



Oh, I'm not surprised it's been criticized. The truth is, it's accurate.


No it’s really not and I have provided you a link with 8 environmental experts who can explain why it’s not evidence of anything.


+21 more 
posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You've provided me a link to a bunch of people who have a vested interest in their research being correct. Now, I won't say this paper is infallible. I'm open to it being proved incorrect. That's how science works. But take a look at the rebuttals on that site. I'll break the first criticism down:



Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:
(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.

(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).

(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).

(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.

(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field). In reality there is strong scientific evidence for conclusions in stark contrast to those of Kauppinen and Malmi, namely that
(a) all of the CO2 rise is from human activity,
(b) that 100% of the CO2-induced warming is therefore anthropogenic, and
(c) that (together with anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases like methane) the total anthropogenic warming is around 1 degC.


1) the demonstration that climate models cannot be relied upon is obvious. Their projections have been wrong, over and over and over and over. In fact, not one has been even close to right.

2) Somehow it's contradictory to say the old models don't work and present a new model, because it's a model? LMAO, this guy is a director of research? It explains why the field is so filled with BS.

3) The whining about sources is disingenuous. If the sources were wrong, these guys would be all over providing the proper sources, but they know they're right. So they're attacking the "lack of professionalism" or what not instead.

4) Is this guy asserting we are now responsible for humidity changes? LMAO.

5) When oceans warm, they release more CO2. The fact that this guy saying that global warming is happening, and doesn't know this, is scary.

6) A big giant appeal to authority.

All of the other rebuttals are similar. They're nothing but whining.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah that’s all very nice but am not really into debating climate change, it’s like trying to debate with a creationist at this point.

I am going to believe those 8 respected experts over your non-peer reviewed article that wouldn’t even pass a first year uni essay. I mean they reference themselves 4 out of the 6 times they actually bother to reference and 2 of those haven’t even been published.

Also those rebuttals are not all the same one of them actually lists 15 other articles that all reach different finding form your one non-peer reviewed, poorly referenced garbage article

It’s actually laughable.
edit on 14-7-2019 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I have been a skeptic, but after seeing the evidence of the melting of the polar ice I have come to believe that human kind is contributing to global warming.

Sadly, short of a massive human die off, there is no reversing the trend.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Maybe the dudes from finland read this article from last year and thought hmm lets maybe try to do som math on this here.
(or something like that)

www.princeton.edu...

who knows?

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Well something is changing the climate and warming things up.

The great lakes were a record high this year. Although they usually swell up around July / August and go back down they have sit an all time high this year. I drive over a large bridge every day for work and there is this little island I call 'bird island'. It usually takes on a bit of water every year, but this time it's almost been completely consumed.

My old plant manager was from Trinidad, he used to play soccer at a park near his little town, it's now 6 ft under ocean water. Miami has been fighting water levels rising for years now and it's becoming a huge problem.

The evidence that something is happening is there. So you might as well take what the majority of the scientific world has come to offer, or continue to try and find ways to not accept it because you think it's a sort of communist ploy to steal peoples money. Even Milton Friedman back in the 70's proposed carbon taxes. We have known about this stuff for decades!



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   
So you're telling me that THIS is the study you chose to believe? But all those other studies saying it's real are fake?

I don't have a dog in the race but that seems a little biased if you ask me.
edit on 7/14/2019 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   
There’s to much conflicting information and it’s become your either with us or against us on both sides.

Personally I think global warming is irrelevant, It’s caused by pollution and I wherever you stand on the issue you can agree humans are polluting the planet in disgusting ways.
If we can find ways to stop polluting then everyone wins and if global warming is real we can stop it.

What you all reckon, humans pollute too much and need to get our # together and stop being such dirty slobs, is this a good compromise that we can all get behind?


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Dfairlite



Oh, I'm not surprised it's been criticized. The truth is, it's accurate.


No it’s really not and I have provided you a link with 8 environmental experts who can explain why it’s not evidence of anything.


You said you weren't interested in debating it, yet you are.

Are you so infallible, that you couldn't possibly be wrong?

Climate change in undeniably real. Mankind has "affected" the climate. Anyone with an understanding of cause and effect would agree. The question is how much has mankind "affected" the climate, and whether it was positive, or negative.

To say it is proven "settled" science is wrong. It is an asinine statement, as there is no such thing, without experiment that can verified with repetition.

Now, on to has the change been positive, or negative? Well, to the planet, itself, it is irrelevant. To life, as a whole, one would have to say hot is way better for life to propogate, than the "snowball earth" scenario. Doesn't that make humans a bit biased, if not down right selfish in their opinions?

Lastly, to what degree has humanity affected the planets overall temperature? That is definately not settled science. Any extended period of volcanic activity, large comet or meteor strike, or changes in the suns energy output dwarfs mankinds contribution. I would even include Milankovitch cycles, as possibly having more effect that humans.

You can link studies, by biased scientists, to back up either position. You can point to computer models that have been "tweeked" to bias a particular outcome. You can post graphs that are made with "adjusted" data all you want, but there is nobody, and I mean nobody understands the entirety of the overall system to say, with any degree of accuracy, exactly what will happen 20 years from now, let alone 100 years.

So get off your know it all high horse, and have a more open mind, or at least be honest about the data you are using to make your case.

There is no consensus among the science world. What thera are, is battle lines drawn.

On one side you have the very left wing (mostly US, and EU) universties, on the other you have more conservative elements.

I find it very odd, and really, against the odds, that the lines would be drawn this way if actual "science" were the driving factor.


+8 more 
posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah that’s all very nice but am not really into debating climate change, it’s like trying to debate with a creationist at this point.

I am going to believe those 8 respected experts over your non-peer reviewed article that wouldn’t even pass a first year uni essay. I mean they reference themselves 4 out of the 6 times they actually bother to reference and 2 of those haven’t even been published.

Also those rebuttals are not all the same one of them actually lists 15 other articles that all reach different finding form your one non-peer reviewed, poorly referenced garbage article

It’s actually laughable.


The link to a rebuttal, which you characterize as a "debunking"...if the scientific method is to be respected and observed, should be the start of the discussion - not the end, as you are suggesting it should be.

The authors of the paper have put forth a theory. The "8 respected experts" have provided a very detailed list of problems they have with the paper and its conclusions. Now, let's wait to see how the authors counter-argue the assertions of the experts (let's see if they can provide the missing data-sets and references).

Isn't this how the peer review process is supposed to work? When people react to new ideas (whether or not they are ultimately proven valid) by stomping their feet and saying, "I am not going to look at this because the science on this is already settled" (while their own models cannot yet provide accurate predictions) - they are short circuiting the way that science is advanced and theories are fine-tuned...or discarded.

Also, since there is so much hostility to any thinking that is outside of the consensus box, I am not surprised that they are having to cite their own background work...the scientific community is, in the main, afraid to try to do any original thinking on this subject.

Are the authors correct in their thinking? No idea at this point.

Should they be dismissed out of hand just because "8 experts" wrote a response that was critical of the papers form, substance and conclusions? Not if we are true searchers for the truth.

The militant refusal of Anthropogenic Climate Change believers to allow (or at the very least condone) free thought on the subject because of a so-called scientific consensus is very symptomatic of a now-general trend in Left-Wing thinking.

As Google is attempting to do with the development of their vaunted algorithms, on every subject, they aim to establish "a single point of truth", and then rank and promote thoughts and statements on each of these subjects in accordance with what they have determined is the applicable single point of truth.

Deviations in thinking or speech, from these ordained truths are to be suppressed, and the utterers of these thoughts are to be demonized, de-platformed and de-monitized...and in increasing numbers, even jailed.

Beware your sanctimonious dismissal of those who disagree with a premise that you have onboarded as one of these single points of truth - lest one day you find yourself disagreeing with, or opposing, some other single point of truth.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
Well something is changing the climate and warming things up.

The great lakes were a record high this year. Although they usually swell up around July / August and go back down they have sit an all time high this year. I drive over a large bridge every day for work and there is this little island I call 'bird island'. It usually takes on a bit of water every year, but this time it's almost been completely consumed.

My old plant manager was from Trinidad, he used to play soccer at a park near his little town, it's now 6 ft under ocean water. Miami has been fighting water levels rising for years now and it's becoming a huge problem.

The evidence that something is happening is there. So you might as well take what the majority of the scientific world has come to offer, or continue to try and find ways to not accept it because you think it's a sort of communist ploy to steal peoples money. Even Milton Friedman back in the 70's proposed carbon taxes. We have known about this stuff for decades!


I live in South Florida, about 200 yds from the ocean.

It is a complete lie that Miami is battling a rise in sea level. Where did you get that? The sea level has been at the same level on the local sea walls, taking into account seasonal, and tidal factors, since the early 80s when I moved here.

I am not a climatologist, but I am an engineer, with a backgroung in physics. Unless you think the sea walls are rising with the sea, there has been no sea rise. What there has been is heavy erosion, some of which is natural, some not so much.

Another example of ppl hearing some propaganda, the repeating it as truth.
edit on 7142019 by Mach2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Actually I don't believe this study (while I do believe the findings in a general sense). The real purpose of this is to show how spotty and filled with holes the current climate change body of work is.

I've done the research for myself and my conclusion is that even if it were happening and were 100% man-made (which no serious scientist contends is the case) it's a net positive.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2

Didn't dicaprio just buy a nice beach house in miami? For someone so concerned about rising sea levels, due to global warming, that seems like a bad plan.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

I'm not understanding the connection. Because polar ice melted, man is to blame? How did you get there?



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Science: when you simply assume all the CO2 rises from the oceans, and have yet to find a culprit for it's alleged mass deportation. Could be Cthulhu tho.



the green new deal was less about climate change and more about completely changing the economy.


And why should they change a thing when socialism for the rich turns out to work like a charme, right?

*drumroll*



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2

Well since I can easily just search google and find hundreds of local news sources about flooding from below the city and the measures they take to basically use sump pumps to get the water back I'm going to say there is an issue.

Just because you walk out the coast or marina and there isn't water literally splashing over onto the streets doesn't mean it's not happening.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join