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: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   
So, a vast majority of scientists in this field are paid, to find global warming.

It's like being paid to be the manager of wally world. Would wally world object if the manager walked up to any customer and said "you will find a much better selection of blaha at Harris Teeters"....

Does anyone really expect someone who is paid to find global warming to come out and say "Hey, whata ya know, NOTHING!!"

Come on seriously.

Oh, and I am as much of a "science guy" as Bill Nye, and we both share the exact same BS degree.

Fred..




posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There are reasons to be wary of this study. That does not make it wrong. I have not seen anyone criticize it and show exactly what is wrong, only that it is wrong.


Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.


So the expert does not say which came first, only that this study can't prove cloud cover came first. Nothing there debunked it, it only showed the research is not complete.
edit on 14-7-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

All of this stuff is so stupid....


CO2 holds heat more efficiently than other atmospheric gases...

We are producing a butt load of CO2 WHILE the more permanent sources of CO2 have not lessened..



If you put more of something that more efficiently absorbs heat into a container... it gets hotter..



1+1=2...



That is why there is an overwhelming consensus... it is VERY easy math.


Hell there are backyard experiments you can do.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

...you realize you're blaming 0.04% of our atmosphere for a 7-10% change in temperature, right? Of course you don't realize that because you've got no idea what you're talking about. Here's a backyard experiment for you, take a mixture of elements (any will do as long as they themselves do not produce heat by mixing them together via chemical reaction), add an additional 0.04% of any one of them. Record the temperature change. LMK when you find one that causes even 1% increase in temperature that is not attributable to your measuring equipment.

And even that experiment is vastly exaggerated. For AGW to be true the experiment would need to show that you went from 0.03% of the chemical to 0.04% of that chemical and saw a 7-10% increase in temperature. Which won't happen. There simply isn't enough of it in the atmosphere to account for anywhere near the amount of warming we've seen.

See the bright red line (made it red because CO2 is evil) here in this pie chart? (yeah, neither can I) That's how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. That's what is getting the blame for a rise in global temperatures. It's hilariously absurd.

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



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

No im making two VERY easy points to understand, while your trying to spout off some other nonsense about .4 and .7 BLAH BLAH BLAH...




1) I’m blaming human beings for producing an obscene amount of CO2

AND

2) I’m accusing CO2 of more efficiently holding heat than nitrogen or oxygen ... I would say all atmospheric gases, but there is likely some irrelevant one that holds heat better... irrelevant because we are not producing a gajillion metric tons of that gas...


Those are two VERY easy things to verify, that ONLY lead to one conclusion..


If you are saying there is some magic mechanism that is removing the extra heat from the CO2 we produce..

That is on you to prove...




“CO2 holds more heat” and “we are producing a buttload of it”, Doesn’t require a rocket scientist..



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Scientists are not that well paid. But "scientists" hired by big oil companies are well paid. Follow the money. Ultimately it isn't in renewable resources.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny



No im making two VERY easy points to understand, while your trying to spout off some other nonsense about .4 and .7 BLAH BLAH BLAH...


Ahh yes, the easy math you wanted me to do can't be bothered by other easy maths.



I’m blaming human beings for producing an obscene amount of CO2


Well that's pretty subjective and probably untrue.



I’m accusing CO2 of more efficiently holding heat than nitrogen or oxygen ... I would say all atmospheric gases, but there is likely some irrelevant one that holds heat better... irrelevant because we are not producing a gajillion metric tons of that gas...


Methane and water vapor come to mind. Water vapor is not irrelevant, it's much better warmer than anything else and there is >10x as much water vapor in the troposphere as there is CO2.



If you are saying there is some magic mechanism that is removing the extra heat from the CO2 we produce..


I'm not saying that. I'm saying the amount we produce accounts for a tiny amount of the warming we have witnessed over the last 250 years. In general, CO2 accounts for very little of the warming at all.
edit on 14-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny


“CO2 holds more heat” and “we are producing a buttload of it”, Doesn’t require a rocket scientist..


Actually, more Co2 in the atmosphere blocks more heat from coming in, according to NASA...


“NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun."


Understanding that doesn't require being a rocket scientist either.

Since it's from NASA, your appeal to authority button should be pushed...

Look up NASA's SABER data.

Then perhaps you won't appear to be ignorant on the subject.




posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that's incorrect. Yes that's what CO2 does in the thermosphere (pushes the heat back out into space), which is what the saber study is about, but in the troposphere it pushes that heat back into the earth. The heat in the troposphere is reflected from the earth, so the CO2 buffers it in attempt to push it back into the earth. The heat in the thermosphere is from space so the CO2 there buffers it in attempt to push it back into space.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

And for the record...

I am talking to you with electricity generated from micro-hydro and solar.

I haven't had an electrical bill for about 6 years now.

If you..

1./ Have an electric bill.

2,/ Are not voluntarily paying 50% of your take home check to the Treasury with a note that says "for global warming"

3./ Drive a car.

Then you are nothing but a hypocrite.

After all, if Co2 emissions are going to be an ELE and you are not actually doing anything about it personally, you are just part of the problem.

According to you.




posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Then please post for me the numbers which show that internal combustion engines generate more thermal energy on the planet then the sun does.

After all, it would be self-correcting, no?

The more C02 generated, the less thermal solar energy, the less planetary thermal energy matters...

Man-made thermal energy isn't an above unity generation, after all.




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



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

No. 80% of the atmospheric mass is in the troposphere, way below the part they collect data on. Hence there simply can't be "more CO2" in the upper layer of the thermosphere.
Most measurements of CO2 happen in the mid-troposphere for a reason.



“NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun."


That's a misrepresentation at best. Here's the original source:


The SABER dataset is the first global, long-term, and continuous record of thermosphere, or upper atmospheric, emissions of nitric oxide and carbon dioxide (— molecules that, in this region of the atmosphere, serve as atmospheric thermostats that send upper atmospheric heat back into space.

One well-documented occurrence of this transfer of heat was in 2012 when over just three days, solar storms dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years. SABER data revealed that the nitric oxide and carbon dioxide in the thermosphere re-radiated 95 percent of that energy back into space.

www.nasa.gov...

Re-radiating 95% of the energy doesn't mean that 95% of the solar rays get absorbed.



The more C02 generated, the less thermal solar energy, the less planetary thermal energy matters...


Kids! This is what happens when you start with a misrepresentation and jump to even more misleading conclusions.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny


CO2 holds heat more efficiently than other atmospheric gases...

Wrong. Absolutely, completely wrong.

This so-called "greenhouse gas effect" (which is not a scientific term in the first place; it is a pop-sci term used to try and explain actual phenomena to people like you) is based on the width of the absorption spectra of the material in question. Carbon dioxide has three very narrow absorption bands, only one of which is in the infrared range. That means it can only absorb radiated heat at that specific wavelength of energy. Anything else, it is transparent to. The reason it has only three narrow absorption bands is because carbon dioxide is a very stable molecule which exists in only one configuration: H-C-H. To simplify things a bit, there are only three 'types' of electrons that can be promoted to a higher quantum level: carbon-bound electrons, hydrogen-bound electrons, and carbon-and-hydrogen-bound (covalent) electrons.

Water vapor, on the other hand, can have several different configurations: H-O-H, O-H-, H2+-O-H, H-O-2H+, H-O-H-O-H+, H-O-H+-O-H, H+-O-H-O-H, and so forth and so on. Those differences are due to something called "hydrogen bonding" that causes water to act as both a weak base and a weak acid, which is why water is sometimes called the "universal solvent." Every different configuration exists at different electron energy levels, and absorption of the right energy wavelengths can also cause shifts from one configuration to another. The different configurations are almost unlimited, so there are an almost unlimited number of spectral lines in water vapor. that makes it orders of magnitude more efficient than carbon dioxide at absorbing and re-emitting heat energy.

Methane has the chemical equation CH4, but it also exists as CH3- and CH5+, giving it much wider and more frequent spectral lines. While not as "efficient" as water vapor, it is still much, much more "efficient" at absorbing and re-emitting heat energy.


We are producing a butt load of CO2 WHILE the more permanent sources of CO2 have not lessened..

I take it you have a very, very small butt. Maybe that's why "buttload" has never been used as a quantitative unit (except for people who don't have any clue to what they are talking about).

Carbon dioxide exists in the atmosphere at a level of approximately 400 ppmv (parts per million by volume). That's 0.04% of the atmosphere. In contrast, oxygen makes up approximately 20% of the atmosphere, while nitrogen makes up something close to 80%. Water vapor can exist anywhere from 0% to 10% of the atmosphere, depending on the specific climate.

That carbon dioxide level is up from a low of 280 ppmv (0.028%) which incidentally is the lowest level at which plant life can survive. So we're really talking about 120 ppmv (0.012% increase from the lowest possible level that can support life). Like I said, that's one awfully tiny butt you got there.


That is why there is an overwhelming consensus... it is VERY easy math.

Actually, it's all based in quantum mechanics. I'm glad to hear you consider quantum mechanics as "very easy math." I don't know any PhDs (and I know quite a few) who would agree with you on that. Perhaps you could spend a few of those oh so plentiful IQ points by handling some of the protein folding issues we have been devoting massive amounts of computer time to? I'd love to see you solve the problem of cancer, for instance.

And there is no consensus. Consensus in science does not exist as a part of science. Reality and physics are not subject to a majority vote.


Hell there are backyard experiments you can do.

Really? Pray tell, which ones confirm carbon-dioxide based Global Warming?

Until you can answer that, I remind you of the first line of this post:

All of this stuff is so stupid....


TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
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.


I blame air conditioning. Think about it we constantly put hot air outside in an effort to stay cool.


Study pending as soon as I get my research grant.
edit on 7/14/19 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

NASA is referring to oxygen and nitrogen, which both have spectral lines in the ultraviolet range. Ozone, a byproduct of oxygen and UV energy, especially.

That's why "greenhouse gas" is not a scientific term... ALL gases have spectral lines and are therefore "greenhouse gases" at the right energy wavelengths.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Why do people think the climate shouldn’t change? It has always changed and done sometimes pretty wacky things. Why do climate scientists throw history out the window when discussing their findings?

Of course the answer is that “climate change” as it is currently viewed, is a political weapon. It is a nebulous idea that can mean anything it’s proponents want it to in order to increase taxes and control over the people.

If I didn’t know so much about the historical climate record, I too would probably conclude that humans are responsible. But they draw a very flimsy line of correlating modern industrial activities to warming trends. How then do they explain past warming (and cooling) periods? Unless there were a bunch of SUVs driving around several thousand years ago, then I’ll remain content in my knowledge that the Earth’s climate regularly goes through these kinds of shifts.

Even more troubling is the hidden undertone to “climate change” which basically says “humans are bad/evil/damaging.” This is an even darker and more sinister belief than the silly climate change hoax itself. It causes people, many young or otherwise ignorant (uneducated) to begin hating themselves. I think this is the real crux of the entire issue - someone or some force really hates human beings and is again using “climate change” as a weapon against us.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 01:35 AM
link   
The climate change is driven primarily by the Maunder cycle, the rhythm of sunspots on the sun's surface. The next most important cause is volcanoes. but that pales in comparison to the Maunder.

Record flooding in US farm country this year.

Yeah, and 13 days without A SINGLE SUNSPOT on the sun's surface. Not a SINGLE solar storm. no aurora. Nothing. Coincidentally, El Nino acting up in the S Pacific.

Usually, Christians are the ones accused of thinking man has a special place in the universe. But AGWers are even worse.




We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality,...



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

who is funding your environmental experts ? This planet is going to do what id does regardless of humans . Darn near wiped us out before and is capable of doing it again . Explain to me what we are going to do with all the used solar panels because they are full of toxic chemicals . How about all the land they will have to take up to get rid of fossil fuels . Get India and China on board and then explain how giving the government more money will change the climate .



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

actually it is growing



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

sounds good to me , we need to fix our garbage and toxins problem . Finding a better alternative to plastic would help




top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join