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: 5
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
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



The peer-review process is corrupt and flawed. Look up Sage Publications and their retraction of 60 scientific papers, as well as October 2013 Economist article “Unreliable research: Trouble at the lab”.

And colleges are pretty biased now, so I'd expect not.


There may be little you can do, but you will still try.

edit on 15-7-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: cenpuppie

Actually, they use previous studies that they conducted.

Just because no one else has thought of something does not mean that something is incorrect. If you want to disprove the papers, try recreating their work and see if you get the same results.

Laughing like a maniac at wild assumptions does not disprove anything.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

To put it simply, human nature makes a lot of things that look good on paper untenable.

Greed, jealousy, and laziness are but a few things that hold mankind back from achieving what is possibe.

Don't misunderstand me. It is what it is. Those same things have, in the past, pushed humanity along in some cases as well.

Im confident we, as a species, will evolve and accomplish wondrous things. Not in my lifetime though.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Didn't VW lie to the public about their emissions?



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Dfairlite

Didn't VW lie to the public about their emissions?


They did, and they paid dearly.

I wonder in who's pocket in Brussels that $ ended up? I would wager that ot wasn't used to combat climate change.

Aside from the fact that the whole thing is a scam, even if it weren't, the hypocrisy of ot all would be enough for me to not give a damn.

When someone preaches to me that I should bear part of the financial burdon of their agenda, while living in a 30,000 sq ft, air conditioned home, and flying private jets, being driven around in huge SUVs, I have to say I don't think so.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Not sure what that has to do with anything... They consumed x amount of gas regardless of what they told the EPA.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Mach2

Hell, communism should work. But human nature makes it so it doesn't. Is there anyone who really argues against this?



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

If you want free enterprise and free market to flourish, company's as large as VW should not lie to the consumers.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Mach2

Hell, communism should work. But human nature makes it so it doesn't. Is there anyone who really argues against this?


Have you seen the democrats that are running for president? I'm not trying to make this a political thread, but most of them are in favor of socialism, which is a close cousin of communism. So yes, there are ppl that would argue.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Mach2

Communism cannot work within the current political model. It's a theoretical global effort, that could come to fruition one day.
Many people see global warming and climate change in the same light. And deny it because it does take a global effort to fix or work against the problem.
edit on 15-7-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   
The Redneck wrote:

“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.”

....................................................................................................................................................
Actually, the discussion of CO2 acting "like a greenhouse" was apparently first used by the scientist Nils Ekholm in a paper published in the "Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society" in 1901. It is not a modern "pop science" term.

Also, while it is true that individual CO2 molecules in rarefied conditions (say, above about 10 km altitude) have very narrow absorption and radiation lines, it is not true for CO2 and other greenhouse gas molecules that are near the Earth’s surface at higher pressure and temperature. There is a phenomenon called "pressure broadening" that broadens out the absorption and radiation lines of molecules that are in a gas dense enough so that the mean free path between successive collisions is on the order of 100 nanometers or less. This broadening makes the lower atmosphere essentially opaque to near IR. One of the first scientific papers that recognized the importance of this effect was published by Strong & Plass in the Astrophysical Journal of 1950, which includes the following sentence:

"Pressure broadening is not a minor correction to the older calculations, but a major cause of the isothermal layer."

Moreover, the fact that CO2 molecules absorb and radiate differently at high altitude vs low altitude is one reason the SABER experiment results don't apply directly to the greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere.

....................................................................................................................................................

The Redneck went on to write:
“Carbon dioxide exists in the atmosphere at a level of approximately 400 ppmv (parts per million by volume). …. That carbon dioxide level is up from a low of 280 ppmv …. So we're really talking about 120 ppmv …. Like I said, that's one awfully tiny butt you got there...”

....................................................................................................................................................

Current estimates are that we are putting about 40 Billion tons of excess CO2 into the air every year. That 120 extra ppmv is 40% of the amount that was in the air before humans started burning fossil fuels. Readers can decide for themselves how their butts compare in size to 40 Billion tons.


....................................................................................................................................................

In response to a statement that, “Hell there are backyard experiments you can do”. The Redneck wrote:
“Really? Pray tell, which ones confirm carbon-dioxide based Global Warming?....”


....................................................................................................................................................

The earliest such experiment seems to have been performed by Eunice Foote, an American female amateur scientist in the early 1800s. She published a paper in “The American Journal of Science and Arts” in 1856. In it, she describes a set of experiments she conducted in her yard. She describes filling glass jars with water vapor, carbon dioxide, and air, with thermometers sealed inside and then comparing how much they heated up in the sun.

She wrote, “The highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas,” (the contemporary term for carbon dioxide).

“The receiver containing the gas became itself much heated – very sensibly more so than the other – and on being removed, it was many times as long in cooling.”

The jar with CO2 in it got 20 degrees hotter than any of the other jars. From this, it was easy to figure out that air mixed with extra CO2 in any ratio would be made hotter by sunlight than air without extra CO2. Because Maxwell's equations, the atomic theory of matter, and quantum mechanics had not come along yet, she obviously couldn't explain just why CO2 was an excellent heat absorber.

But we can now.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Mach2

They did pay, you're right.
But people bought into vw thinking they were buying low emission cars. They lied to gain the upper hand.
Meanwhile Mercedes and BMW have some very fuel efficient cars and dodnt lie, and didnt need to pay See how that work?



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer


Actually, the discussion of CO2 acting "like a greenhouse" was apparently first used by the scientist Nils Ekholm in a paper published in the "Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society" in 1901. It is not a modern "pop science" term.

It is certainly not a modern scientific term either. The mechanism which is described does not operate like a greenhouse, nor like a blanket (another oft-used unscientific term). Photons of the correct wavelength are absorbed, promoting an electron to a higher energy level, then re-emitted when the electron demotes. The released energy is re-emitted in a random direction determined by quantum conditions, which we thus far have found to be undeterminable before the occurrence (in other words: random).

My post was not stating how old the term is; only that it is scientifically inaccurate and generally used to try and over-simplify the actual science. Perhaps that is why I never used the word "modern" in my explanation.


Also, while it is true that individual CO2 molecules in rarefied conditions (say, above about 10 km altitude) have very narrow absorption and radiation lines, it is not true for CO2 and other greenhouse gas molecules that are near the Earth’s surface at higher pressure and temperature.

Actually it is true. The spectral lines of any gas are not digital; they exhibit a bell curve profile. This is due to the pressure broadening you mention (but apparently do not understand). The shift in energy wavelength is a result of collision impact during the emission process, and causes a small variation in the energy of the released photon which in turn causes a minor variation in the wavelength.

(Actually, any energy encountered by the material in question can also lead to spectral broadening, but I don't personally know of any large electrical gradients or large magnetic flux gradients in the atmosphere to accomplish this, especially in the troposphere.)

The spectral lines published for carbon dioxide are taken at atmospheric temperature and pressure. They indicate three very narrow bands. If the broadening of the spectral lines were excessive, carbon dioxide could not function well as a lasing material because the exact same spectral lines determine the wavelength of emitted photons; were this so, a carbon dioxide laser would be a very bright light, not a laser. Lasing mediums must operate on a single wavelength.


Moreover, the fact that CO2 molecules absorb and radiate differently at high altitude vs low altitude is one reason the SABER experiment results don't apply directly to the greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere.

The SABER experiment indicated that photons in the UV spectrum were blocked, not in the IR spectrum. Carbon dioxide does not have any spectral lines in the UV spectrum, nor does it have any close enough for pressure broadening to cause UV absorption.


Current estimates are that we are putting about 40 Billion tons of excess CO2 into the air every year. That 120 extra ppmv is 40% of the amount that was in the air before humans started burning fossil fuels. Readers can decide for themselves how their butts compare in size to 40 Billion tons.

Relativistic bull peanuts.

To the uneducated, the number of 40 billion tons sounds like a massive amount. Yet, that 40 billion tons is minuscule in the extreme compared to the mass of the atmosphere. The atmosphere has a total mass of 5.665x10^15 tons, which is 5.665 million billion tons, so in that respect 40 billion tons is tiny. It's like complaining about adding a teaspoon of water to a lake. In addition, the planetary absorption of carbon dioxide is not fixed; photosynthesis accounts for most of it and feeds back positively - increased carbon dioxide absorption leads to faster plant growth which results in more photosynthesis. While we do not know the actual amount of photosynthetic activity on the earth, we do know the mechanism. We also know that plants continue to increase growth at least up to 2000 ppmv, since this is used commercially in actual greenhouses to accelerate plant growth.


The earliest such experiment seems to have been performed by Eunice Foote, an American female amateur scientist in the early 1800s. She published a paper in “The American Journal of Science and Arts” in 1856. In it, she describes a set of experiments she conducted in her yard. She describes filling glass jars with water vapor, carbon dioxide, and air, with thermometers sealed inside and then comparing how much they heated up in the sun.

That doesn't prove Global Warming; it disproves it. If we assume for the moment that the temperature dependency is linear, a simple calculation shows that 0.04% of 20 degrees C is 0.008 degrees C.

Of course, we now know that temperature dependence is not linear. The experiment was qualitative and not quantitative.

An even greater problem equating her experiment to present Global Warming theories is that carbon dioxide cannot be responsible for such a temperature increase due to spectral phenomena as the spectral lines do not reach into the visible or infrared. The carbon dioxide will tend to retain IR radiation in line with its spectral bands, so any heat that might be generated by the sun's interaction with the glass or conductive heat passed through the glass would be retained. This is likely the reasoning behind the observed increase.

To truly examine the source of the heat, the glass jars would have to be enclosed in a black container that was maintained at a specific temperature with the only possible radiation entering being due to the solar radiance. That's a little beyond a typical back-yard experimenter's afternoon project.

But even then it is not comparable to the earth, unless you believe the atmosphere is encased in a glass jar. I do not.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

we dont live in balance with nature , we destroy more than we care for

Animals live in symbiosis with nature , humans have taken themselves out of the natural environment and built our own environment boot strapped on top!

we are capable of destruction on a massive scale

its not the fact we are making it uninhabitable for ourselves , we are destroying other forms of life as we go and making it uninhabitable for others as well .

We are not the arbiters of reality and what constitutes conscious life
we are arrogant in our ways and we dont care enough for the place that gives us life.


So all those atomic tests, chemical disasters , oil spills, nuclear accidents, those arent killing other lifeforms ?



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Tony this Skeptic has proof that Dfairlite is on time and right.
www.space.com...

Several proofs and some threads full of good data and discussion.

Tampered with the data is an inescapable fact
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Al Gore was teaching at this University when they broke out a car that runs on Water by cracking water to get H2 while driving so as to not build up dangerous Brown Gas. I tried to get Al to talk about this award winning car. He wants Oil so that the Cabal gets to run our lives by holding it back. And after seeing this car at an EPA event showing of alternative ideas, I was hooked day one. This is basically a design that the the Manufacturers have now stolen from the inventors. H2 cars are coming but are too costly to buy for the average consumer. Electric cars use mostly Coal and Oil fired electricity sources too.
phys.org...

Greenland Glacier growing , did you know?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dont buy the lies READ, there are lots of dissenting Scientist with solid proof.
:


edit on 16-7-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Dfairlite

They will become tortoises.


www.bbc.com...


BBC says so and so says something no one can see or prove is the truth?

PASS on this one boys and girls. Propaganda 101 would say keep repeating that lie as truth, someone will believe. You have to be able to see this lie by now and either WISH to believe the lie that my CO2 causes Planets to die, or you don't. I don't wish to curtail plant food when I know in the past the plants were way bigger than today and life thrived. So, there it is for me.

edit on 16-7-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:40 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!

You mention the great lakes. First off let me remind/inform those who have forgot/didnt know, about 10 years ago (up until 4 years ago) there was a campaign to "stop the drop". Basically, it was a group of people who organized to combat the problem of the water levels dropping across the great lakes. There was your classic doom porn involved (claiming that if we didnt immediately take action, that the lakes would be gone in a few years/decades). That was all well and fine, they were making some headway on convincing people to believe that humans were the main culprit. That our excess use of water was what was behind the drop. They even had scientists and professionals claiming it, to help sell the plebs on the "fact" I guess.

Then suddenly things changed, four years ago the water level began to rise, and rise, and rise some more. Now we are currently sitting at levels that haven't been seen in 30+ years.

Funniest part of it all was, sometime around 2012 (so the beginning stages/ middle of the campain), while I was working at a local store an old guy came in one day. He told me how he had lived around the lake his entire life and remembered similar drops happening a few times in his life. In an approximate 30 year cycle. He predicted that in a few years things would change and the water would start to rise again... 3 years later, he was right.

This is proof of a couple things, the earth works on cycles, and that people either a) have very short memories or b) that we are easily manipulated or finally c) a combo of both a and b.

Now to put it in perspective of climate change, for those to wrapped up in the bs to see reality (even if its screaming in their face). The earth and all her systems work on a rotating cycle, there are high points and low point, maximums and minimums. What we are currently experiencing is merely the beginning of a new trend, something humanity has little to no control over, no matter how much we "Reeeee" on the subject. Beyond that I still call temperature readings into question when ever this topic is brought up. We have only been recording global temperatures for around 100 years, most of those are so inaccurate that it's almost laughable, with only the last 50 or years being consistently collected and recorded according to a set standard. That is a ridiculously small time frame to draw experience and knowledge from. The planet is after all billions of years old. Sure we have ice core samples and tree ring samples that seem to prove something is happening and maybe happened in the past. But we really dont know for certain, just a best guess. After all it isnt like we have written record to go off of, personal accounts or historical records of such events (likely due in no small part to the fact that the majority of the world's population couldn't read or write before 100 years ago). But that's another topic.

The point I'm trying to make is it is always best, to try and decide for yourself and stop letting other think for you. No matter if you are right or wrong you still gain much from the experience.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
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



The Icebergs that Al Gore said would be melted by now are not only still there but larger. It is a myth and science has always lied to us. I am 47 now and the weather is pretty much the same now as when I was a boy. No evidence other than your scientists' words. Scientists also told us that after the Polar Ice Caps melted that it would flood and drown outlying states...some would disappear. A simple high school experiment can debunk that one. These scientists are funded and controlled by special interests (the Government) and those who control the Government (Corporations and the Rothschild's) are nothing but liars and simply want to charge us carbon taxes to clean up a messs that they created int he first place. This wasn't "debunked" btw, it was just denied by people like you. That's not debunking, that's doing what Democrats have always done..fabricate scary stories using their own scientists as messengers and deny reality. There are many other real scientists that say that Climate scientists are just fear mongers, have an agenda and are full of crap. I believe THEM, because Democrats, Democrat controlled scientists and pretty much any Liberal I have heard these days are simply just insane and get caught in so many lies you just can't keep up anymore. Why would I believe those verified liars now? I don't and I won't. The only proof they have is on paper..and data can, has been, and will always be doctored by Democrats to get foolish, terrified cult followers to believe in anything that will make them money.




edit on 16-7-2019 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Nope, not a fact. Still just a theory meant to sucker the idiots into driving smart cars and eating less beef. If this was real, these rich people crying about it wouldn't be flying across the world in huge jets adding more CO2 to the atmosphere in one trip than we'll add in 20 years by driving our cars. This is just as ignorant as Cortez telling America they need to stop eating cows just before she had a hamburger at a restaurant. How can people be so damn stupid to buy into it? People need more common sense. It's mind blowing how stupid they can be just because science wants them to be. They're not on your side, wake the # up.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It's a crying shame that a little common sense can outsmart these people who actually went to school for this. It really puts into context, how bad education has become.

Polluting the atmosphere would stop/slow/reverse the warming, but the dog turds crying the loudest are the ones ignorantly wanting a cleaner atmosphere, therefore causing the warming they're wanking on about.

It's right there in front of them, all they have to do is think.




top topics



 
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join