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: 12
51
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I see, once again, that you aren't interested in an honest discussion.
edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




It is funny that many .edu/.org publications that talk about the cooling between 1250 and 1850 is said over and over again to be a combination of eruptions and low sun radiation with grand solar minimum mention as periods with lower radiation.
I'm not sure what your point is but yes, during solar minima total solar irradiance declines. By a very small amount. During the Maunder Mimimum TSI was less than 0.1% below its current level. Not enough to cause significant cooling. Did you read the paper I posted? Did you read the quote? It says that there was an effect, but it was not significant.
lasp.colorado.edu...


China once again has close to half of the world GW in coal, so what do we do about that?
Ignore it, I guess. Ignore the problem entirely. Seems to be the popular thing to do.
www.usatoday.com...

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Did you read the paper I posted? Did you read the quote? It says that there was an effect, but it was not significant.


I did read it and I'm not debating that. My point is for all these orgs to suggest global cooling is caused from eruptions AND lower periods of radiation would lead one to think lower ration periods is also significant, otherwise why list it as one of two major points.



Ignore it, I guess. Ignore the problem entirely. Seems to be the popular thing to do.


Trump is a 4 year issue...I'm talking 40+ years... We can "look squirrel" Trump all day as the big bad wolf of China eats all the chickens...

Trump seems to be the only important things these days even though he is wrong about coal, he is right about China's threat in just about everything else. But then we can do great things like ban plastic bags in Portland...

The question is what do we replace coal plants with? Do we go nuclear to get us once again to some future prime time technology that will replace it all?




edit on 3-8-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




The question is what do we replace coal plants with?
Natural gas is better, though it still produces CO2, as an intermediary solution. Reducing emissions is not the only way to reduce (and ultimately stop, hopefully) the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but it is the most important.

Coal is obsolete, yet the government promotes its use. The government, which could have the greatest impact by stimulating research into both energy production and mitigation of the problems that warming brings, ignores the problem, denies there is a problem. A problem that, as more time passes, will become more and more difficult (and costly) to deal with.

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Oh, I am very interested in an honest discussion. I just include in that honesty the open observation that my opponent has used dishonest tactics in the past.

If you want an honest discussion, be honest in your discussion.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I am. And I don't misrepresent what others have said.

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, Phage, you're not being intellectually honest. And your statement from before stands in your own linked words. I even asked you if you understood the implications of your statements. Apparently you lied about understanding that, too.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

My statement was that models are based on the effects of radiative forcing. This is a fact. Increasing CO2 concentrations are the primary cause of increased radiative forcing and thus, warming. I did not say that CO2 has nothing to do with temperatures. That is a gross misrepresentation and you know it.

What's with the advertising, btw? Have the T&Cs changed?


edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


My statement was that models are based on the effects of radiative forcing. This is a fact.

Nice spin. You also stated that the climate models did not concern themselves with CO2 levels, which you just refuted.

Actually, you cannot make those kind of statements about all models. Models are a mathematical representation of the various components of the systems being studied. It depends on the actual model being used as to whether it uses carbon dioxide levels or the radiative forcing assumed from those levels. Your knowledge of how all this works is lacking, and that generalization and contradiction proves it.

If you must know, I have permission from Springer to have that ad, and that is my daughter's Etsy site. She is going through some trying times right now. The rules have always been for members in good standing to make a request before posting personal links. Nothing has changed.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




You also stated that the climate models did not concern themselves with CO2 levels, which you just refuted.
Please provide a quote and link.

Best wishes to your daughter.

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I did.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You did not. Let me help you.
You said

Every single study makes an assumption that carbon dioxide levels are increasing global temperatures.

To which I replied:

They are based on the physics of radiative forcing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is true, a climate model must be based on radiative forcing, Earth's energy balance. This includes both negative and positive forcing. Rising CO2 concentrations are increasing radiative forcing. As a result temperatures are rising.
 

Now, show me where I said:


carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global temperatures.

You cannot because I did not.

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


a climate model must be based on radiative forcing, Earth's energy balance. Rising CO2 concentrations are increasing radiative forcing. As a result temperatures are rising.

That must be why you disagreed with me when I stated the models are generally all based on the assumption that carbon dioxide levels are increasing. According to that, you thought the radiative forcing was different than the carbon dioxide levels. In truth, it is a function of of carbon dioxide levels.

Radiative forcing is also far from the only thing that must be considered. There are an almost unlimited number of feedbacks.

You spun it one way back then, and now you're spinning it the other way. I guess it depends on the premise you are confronted with. Carbon dioxide levels matter in one thread, radiative forcing matters in another one.

They both matter, because they are both different aspects of the same thing. One does not exist without the other. Try to understand that.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


According to that, you thought the radiative forcing was different than the carbon dioxide levels. In truth, it is a function of of carbon dioxide levels.
As well as other things; aerosols, ice fields, clouds, water vapor, methane. They also affect forcing. They are also considered in the models. I would have thought that you know that.


Radiative forcing is also far from the only thing that must be considered.
Of course, but it is the primary driver of the planet's energy budget. It ultimately determines how much heat is retained or lost to space.


You spun it one way back then, and now you're spinning it the other way. I guess it depends on the premise you are confronted with.
No. I've been saying the same thing. The models are based on forcing. I guess you just are too single minded to understand that.
 

Now, show me where I said:


carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global temperatures.

You cannot because I did not.

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


As well as other things; aerosols, ice fields, clouds, water vapor, methane. They also affect forcing. They are also considered in the models. I would have thought that you know that.

Of course I know that. That is one of my arguments against Global Warming: the carbon dioxide level differentials are minuscule compared to other gases which either exist is greater quantities or have greater absorption spectra or both.

You are the one who is constantly complaining about all that evil CO2 floating around attacking photons.


Of course, but it is the primary driver of the planet's energy budget. It ultimately determines how much heat is retained or lost to space.

Actually, it controls how much radiative heat is lost. It has little to do with conductive or convective heat transfer.

It also has little to do with the input energy. You're still looking at one term in a huge equation. I haven't run the calcs, but I would not be surprised if I could set a bathroom mirror on the ground and negate the CO2 effects over my entire place.


No. I've been saying the same thing. The models are based on forcing. I guess you just are too single minded to understand that.

Yep, I guess I am. Maybe I would be more intelligent if I simply posted links I don't fully understand.

Those particular words were mine, based on your overall arguments in that thread. Nice deflection attempt.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Those particular words were mine, based on your overall arguments in that thread.

So, you made it up. You lied. I did not say that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures. I have never said it , or anything close to it, because the notion is absurd.

As a mod you can correct your transgression.


edit on 8/4/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

" ...seeing the evidence of the melting of the polar ice.."


Was there EVER a Time in Earth's History when the Present North Pole was not Covered in Ice ? If so , what do you Personally Think caused that Professor ?



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


So, you made it up.

No, I summarized.

You're stepping into those dangerous areas again. If you do not accept summarizations, you just discounted over half of every link you have posted. Shall we dance again?

I'm going to keep you honest on this, Phage.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



No, I summarized.

You fabricated.



I'm going to keep you honest on this, Phage.
Cut the crap. I never said anything close to



CO2 has no effect on global temperatures


edit on 8/4/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So you are saying a summarization is a fabrication?

TheRedneck




top topics



 
51
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join