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: 13
51
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yours is.




posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I think I summarized your position very well. I brought up evidence that carbon dioxide was not responsible for the effects being discussed and you countered by saying it was still radiative forcing and not carbon dioxide. That sounds to me like you openly admitted that carbon dioxide was not responsible.

Now you say it is, because carbon dioxide contributes to radiative forcing (which is true enough).

It's a bait and switch tactic: you can't dispute evidence based on carbon dioxide, so you retreat into radiative forcing... then when the coast is clear, you come back out with radiative forcing insisting that it is due to carbon dioxide. And when you get called out on it, you simply act all hurt and claim it's all just a big lie.

The lie is that carbon dioxide is going to destroy the planet.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I think I summarized your position very well.

You are deluded.


That sounds to me like you openly admitted that carbon dioxide was not responsible.
I said that radiative forcing is the basis of climate models. I did not, nor have I ever said that CO2 has no effect on global temperatures.


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



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I said that radiative forcing is the basis of climate models. I did not, nor have I ever said that CO2 has no effect on global temperatures.

Certainly sounded like it to me.

Of course, it helped your narrative at the time.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Certainly sounded like it to me.

You are deluded.
Self deception. It's a thing.
But it doesn't change the fact that you made it up.

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



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 06:36 AM
link   
They make a bold claim in the first sentence that they have proof. Science is just evidence gathering, not 'proving', and correlations are not causitive evidence anyway. It just demonstrates how desperate the authors are, and the fact this study has spread so much demonstrates how desperate climate change skeptics are.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I made up nothing, Phage. I summarized your position in that other thread and pointed out where it conflicted with your position in this one.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



The notion that the "pause" invalidates the theory that increasing CO2 concentrations have, are, and will, increase global temperatures is absurd.


whew, good thing I didn't make that argument. That was close.



Once again, in the past 5 years, my yard is going away after being stable for at least 60 years. The oceans are getting "bigger" because of thermal expansion and ice melt.


Yes, and millions of years ago your land was part of pangea.



Or don't you think the planet is warming at a greater rate than natural influences can account for?


Nope, I don't think it's warming at a rate greater than natural influence can account for. Or, if it is, it's so insignificant as to be hardly a footnote.



Which natural forces would that be?


All of them. With their powers combined, they are captain planet.



Surely it must be something other than us, all of us. Right? Surely, it must be.


I'm going to refer you to the last paragraph and image in this post. We are *possibly* responsible for less than one third of that sliver you can't even see. To blame that sliver is just asinine in general, but to blame people responsible for at most 1/3 of that invisible sliver strains credulity.



Did you miss the part about Bates not saying the data was manipulated?


The purpose of directing you to bates was not to prove the data was massaged, but to prove that they don't follow scientific rigor very well in the climate change community.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Yes, and millions of years ago your land was part of pangea.

Actually, his land was part of the seabed. The Hawaiian Island Chain was created from volcanic eruptions.

There's a funny thing about volcanic islands... they experience uplift and subsidence, erosion, new eruptions... their size and features are constantly changing quite rapidly on a cosmic scale. To us humans, 60 years may seem like a lifetime (probably because it is close), but to the natural forces shaping the planet, it is an eyeblink. In the painfully short time we have been recording history, we have seen numerous examples of natural forces acting literally overnight. Think Pompeii. Think the legendary destruction of Atlantis. Think Fukushima.

And yet, mankind still thinks geologic processes must move slowly over eons.

If Phage's yard is shrinking, it is due to either erosion or subsidence. But I guess it's easier to blame all that carbon dioxide... excuse me, all that radiative forcing.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




If Phage's yard is shrinking, it is due to either erosion or subsidence.

You are making things up again. Filling in your ignorance with delusions because you just can't accept the facts. Confirmation bias at its finest.


It is not due to erosion, water levels are higher. Both high and low tides. Water is inundating my seawall. That is not erosion, that is a higher water level. But, since you don't have much experience with the ocean, you may have trouble understanding the difference. I know you like bass fishing, but that ain't the ocean. I have a great deal of experience with the ocean, and in particular, this location. I grew up here, in, on, and around the ocean. I have been living in this house for 25 years.

It is not due to subsidence. Geology shows that Oahu is not subsiding. If anything, Oahu is experiencing a very slight uplift due to the weight of the younger islands to the east. Push down here, it goes up there. The high water levels are due to lens of high water which is forming in this part of the pacific. The water is high because it is warm water, very warm water. Warm water is bigger than cooler water. It makes a bump. Satellite altimetry shows this lens of warm water. My seawall shows this lens of warm water. Warm water on top of more water from melting glaciers. A similar event happened a few years and lasted for two years. That event produced record high tides before returning to "normal" levels. This one just began, we'll see what happens. Welcome to the new "normal."
www.hawaiinewsnow.com...

And yes, it is caused by warming. The oceans are retaining more heat because radiative forcing is increasing. Due, primarily, to increasing CO2 concentrations.


edit on 8/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

A higher water level compared to what, Phage? Surely you are not trying to get an absolute position on the height of the water around you? What are you using as your base point?

As for the water lensing, it sounds like you already have the answer and it is not global sea level rise by definition. That is a local, temporary phenomenon. Thermal conductance and convection will cause the temperature differences to equalize; gravity will cause the water level to equalize.

I am curious, though... you say the phenomenon is caused by cold water from melting glaciers under the warm water on top? I didn't know you guys had glaciers out there in the middle of the Pacific! How many cubic miles of glacier ice do you figure Hawaii has?

Oh, and as for me not knowing much about the ocean... I may be inland, but that doesn't mean I don't understand how it works. I know how ion implantation works as well, but believe it or not I have never been inside a silicon wafer.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




A higher water level compared to what, Phage?

Compared to what it has been over the past 100 years.


What are you using as your base point?
What water levels were over the past 100 years.


As for the water lensing, it sounds like you already have the answer and it is not global sea level rise by definition.
I know that. But you see, there's the fact that the previous event exceeded any tides on record. As the oceans warm this will occur more and more often. As land temperatures continue to set far more high temperature records than low.


I didn't know you guys had glaciers out there in the middle of the Pacific! How many cubic miles of glacier ice do you figure Hawaii has?
Funny. Glacial melt is causing sea levels to rise in general. Thermal expansion is also doing so. We are now experiencing an event of enhanced thermal expansion in this region. A spike in the trend of rising sea levels.


I may be inland, but that doesn't mean I don't understand how it works.
Yes, it does. You claim that the high sea levels I am experiencing are due to erosion or subsidence. They are not. You do not know how it works. Clearly. You just use the same claims that all "skeptics" use to deny the facts.


edit on 8/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Last time it was hot with high levels of carbon dioxide we had 500ft tall trees and 100ft long animals,its cold that kills not heat.



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Compared to what it has been over the past 100 years.


What water levels were over the past 100 years.

O...K...

Phage, when you measure something, you are measuring from a point to a point. It is not possible to measure between a point and where that point was 20 years ago unless you have a time-stationary base point with which to compare them. I am asking what base point you are using to measure the level of the water. If you cannot answer that, you cannot say whether the water level has gone up, down, sideways, or anything else about it. You are taking a guess.

Now, can we actually talk science? What is the base point for your measurements?


I know that. But you see, there's the fact that the previous event exceeded any tides on record. As the oceans warm this will occur more and more often.

A record that goes back how many years? 100? Less?

Your second sentence above is a pure assumption.


Funny. Glacial melt is causing sea levels to rise in general. Thermal expansion is also doing so. We are now experiencing an event of enhanced thermal expansion in this region. A spike in the trend of rising sea levels.

You said:

originally posted by: Phage

The water is high because it is warm water, very warm water. Warm water is bigger than cooler water. It makes a bump. Satellite altimetry shows this lens of warm water. My seawall shows this lens of warm water. Warm water on top of more water from melting glaciers. A similar event happened a few years and lasted for two years. That event produced record high tides before returning to "normal" levels. This one just began, we'll see what happens. Welcome to the new "normal."


That indicates that the "water from melting glaciers" is very cold, since if it were about the same temperature of the hot water atop it, how could one tell where glacier water stopped and this bubble of warm water started? Water does not remain hot when in cold water, nor does it remain cold when it is in hot water; the temperature equalizes due to conduction of heat energy. Since your post indicated this is very cold water from melting glaciers, I simply assumed you had glaciers melting in Hawaii. Otherwise, you're full of crap, frankly, because by the time any water gets to the mid Pacific, it is not the same temperature it was when it melted.


You claim that the high sea levels I am experiencing are due to erosion or subsidence. They are not. You do not know how it works. Clearly. You just use the same claims that all "skeptics" use to deny the facts.

I am basing my judgement of the situation on the fact that gravity does not shift around willy-nilly and very few coastal areas are affected by this supposed sea level rise, generally areas which have seen a large increase in building recently. Unless there is some force holding water in an area (like strong currents), any localized rise in ocean level compared to the earth's gravitational center is temporary. Any systemic rise will affect all coastal areas, not specific ones.

You are claiming that the ocean is rising compared to your seawall level. Fine; I'll accept that. Now, there are two possibilities: the ocean is rising compared to your seawall or your seawall is lowering compared to the ocean. If the ocean is rising, it will rise everywhere (subject to a small time variation for inertia). If the seawall is lowering, it will not.

Therefore, unless you can show me where the gravitational attraction in your area is changing, or where some mechanism is thwarting thermal conduction, any oceanic rise compared to the earth's gravitational center is temporary and your seawall is lowering compared to the earth's gravitational center.

You have made two serious mistakes in this one post: first, you apparently do not know how to take a measurement, and second, you ignore thermal conduction.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum


its cold that kills not heat.

*sigh*

You know that; I know that. But try to explain it to someone worked up in a frenzy over plant food, and you get threads like this.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




If you cannot answer that

I did answer that. Tide records spanning 100 years show that the previous event far exceed levels of that time period.


Your second sentence above is a pure assumption.
No. It is a fact. Physics.


That indicates that the "water from melting glaciers" is very cold
It indicates that there is more water in the ocean.



I am basing my judgement of the situation on the fact that gravity does not shift around willy-nilly and very few coastal areas are affected by this supposed sea level rise, generally areas which have seen a large increase in building recently.
Your judgement based on an incomplete understanding of the influences on sea level. The oceans are not a lake, or a bathtub. Sea levels are rising, in general, as a result of glacial melt and thermal expansion. Thermal expansion can be regional as well as general. As warming continues both effects will continue to increase in magnitude and they, nor gravity, are the only influences.


Now, there are two possibilities: the ocean is rising compared to your seawall or your seawall is lowering compared to the ocean.
My seawall, as well as the entire coastline of Oahu, are not subsiding. www.researchgate.net...


You have made two serious mistakes in this one post: first, you apparently do not know how to take a measurement, and second, you ignore thermal conduction.
Incorrect. It is you who continues to ignore the facts.
edit on 8/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Phage, believe what you want; I am tiring of arguing with a brick wall. You cannot even tell me how much the ocean has risen because you don't have a stationary reference point. For all you know, the thing could be upside down and everything around it is upside down as well.

Get back to me on that seawall thing when you figure out how to read a tape measure, O Scientific One.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
51
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join