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: 6
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

So it doesn't make sense to you, that "polluting" the atmosphere with CO2 - therefore blocking UV and other harmful rays - would cool the earth back to the temps we were at before we started coming out of the mini ice age we were in?

It instead makes sense to you, that cleaning the atmosphere - therefore allowing more UV and other harmful rays - would cool the earth instead of heat it?





posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

If you stop polluting, everyone really will be frying.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
plantsneedco2.org...
Take a read..



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

So the climate changed, correct?



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Very few people dispute that the climate is changing. The problem is using the fact that the climate changes--as if it's somehow possible for it to stay static--as evidence that humans are radically altering the climate. There's no evidence of that. There's no scientific consensus on that. The consensus is that the climate is changing. Progressives conflate the two issues as if they're the same. There's no consensus that humans are driving climate change or how much we contribute. That seems like a vital piece of information to have before we cripple our economy trying to combat it, when our efforts may not even do anything because there's no data on how much we're even affecting it.

I realize this is too complicated though, so just repeat some 98% nonsense and advocate for AGW deniers to be charged with a crime.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I was coming here proposing that the climate is changing. Not that its man made. Either way humans gotta figure it out to survive the way we are now, so denying that humans do play a part, even if it's small, is rather closed minded.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

My issue with the whole thing is that somehow the U.S.A. and a few other countries are supposed to single-highhandedly save the entire world while the worst environmental offenders carry on business as usual.
We've made great strides in the the last 30 years in reducing air pollution here in SoCal, particularly in the ports so what is one of the biggest issues now? Chinese air pollution blowing across the Pacific.
What are we supposed to do about that?



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61

my guess is what they always do increase trade tarrifs and sanction the hell out of them is what the government should do !

then the companies who pollute trade of carbon tax credits or whatever and fudge the numbers for cash payments

something along those lines , someone will be making money off it somewhere, somehow.

Cash now at the expense of the planet !


I just dont understand it , humanity that is , we have inherited the greatest gift , a planet that allows life to flourish and here were slowly turning it into a planet that can only sustain a very small amount of life in comparison to its state before we entered into the industrial revolution!

You wouldnt squander a 400billion inheritance from your parents if they left you it, youd invest and make the money grow and use it for good. The earth is worth so much more .

I always enjoy the quote from one of the chiefs of the big turtle , that once we destroy our natural environment
we will suffer an even greater lonliness of spirit than we already do when all of the animals are gone and its just us last few survivors!



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: face23785

My issue with the whole thing is that somehow the U.S.A. and a few other countries are supposed to single-highhandedly save the entire world while the worst environmental offenders carry on business as usual.
We've made great strides in the the last 30 years in reducing air pollution here in SoCal, particularly in the ports so what is one of the biggest issues now? Chinese air pollution blowing across the Pacific.
What are we supposed to do about that?


Reducing the air pollution hurt Southern Cal more than the pollution blowing over the the Pac.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: face23785

My issue with the whole thing is that somehow the U.S.A. and a few other countries are supposed to single-highhandedly save the entire world while the worst environmental offenders carry on business as usual.
We've made great strides in the the last 30 years in reducing air pollution here in SoCal, particularly in the ports so what is one of the biggest issues now? Chinese air pollution blowing across the Pacific.
What are we supposed to do about that?


Reducing the air pollution hurt Southern Cal more than the pollution blowing over the the Pac.


That may be true, but I can remember Smog Alerts and the hazy orange summer sunsets of the late 60's over L.A. and by the early 90's they mostly went away. Worth the pain? I couldn't say.
edit on 7 16 2019 by underpass61 because: added



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: face23785

My issue with the whole thing is that somehow the U.S.A. and a few other countries are supposed to single-highhandedly save the entire world while the worst environmental offenders carry on business as usual.
We've made great strides in the the last 30 years in reducing air pollution here in SoCal, particularly in the ports so what is one of the biggest issues now? Chinese air pollution blowing across the Pacific.
What are we supposed to do about that?


Reducing the air pollution hurt Southern Cal more than the pollution blowing over the the Pac.


That may be true, but I can remember Smog Alerts and the hazy orange summer sunsets of the late 60's over L.A. and by the early 90's they mostly went away. Worth the pain? I couldn't say.


Oh I understand that, but you'll notice as the environmentalists started cleaning the air, the temperatures started to rise. UV rays are hotter today than they were when I started driving in the mid 90's and I can remember never using my A/C, I always had my windows down. 90° today feels more like 105° when in 1994, it felt more like 85°. At least in Louisiana it was like that. I say we bring back bad emissions that smelled good and big hair styles that took lots of Aqua Net and Rave.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
That may be true, but I can remember Smog Alerts and the hazy orange summer sunsets of the late 60's over L.A. and by the early 90's they mostly went away. Worth the pain? I couldn't say.

I personally feel that recycling anything is just doing a manufacturer's work for them and increasing their profits for no discernible benefit to the recycler. However, I don't like living garbage, either. The cleaner air in Southern California might not do anything significant to the overall climate of the world, and getting a smog check is kind of a pain, but I sure don't miss my eyes stinging when I step outside on a really smoggy day.

So I guess I'm for cleaning up and protecting the environment in my immediate vicinity.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: face23785

My issue with the whole thing is that somehow the U.S.A. and a few other countries are supposed to single-highhandedly save the entire world while the worst environmental offenders carry on business as usual.
We've made great strides in the the last 30 years in reducing air pollution here in SoCal, particularly in the ports so what is one of the biggest issues now? Chinese air pollution blowing across the Pacific.
What are we supposed to do about that?


You're supposed to sign meaningless "accords" like Paris, which the IPCC themselves said would be completely ineffective even if it was fully implemented (which it was never going to be) and then freak out and virtue signal when the US doesn't cripple their economy trying to combat this problem that hasn't even been proven to be driven by human activity.

Like everything progressives embrace, the solution is whatever feels good, not necessarily something that will actually make a difference.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: face23785

I was coming here proposing that the climate is changing. Not that its man made. Either way humans gotta figure it out to survive the way we are now, so denying that humans do play a part, even if it's small, is rather closed minded.


It's impossible that humans don't contribute. The question is whether human contribution is significant enough that the massive changes we're supposed to make would solve the problem. That question is unanswered. Pretending it's settled science is rather closed minded.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The time table and end results are debated, the overall concept as I laid out is not.. because it is very easy math..

Conservative conspiracy theorists latch on to the most extreme projections on the most extreme models and say “look!! See I told you it was all a haox!! Excuse me while I go cash this day oil company check.”

Conservative propaganda is done using very simple math as well..

A) everything humans do produces CO2 from breathing to industrial stuff.. literally every smoke stack, car engine anything else that even touches chemical combustion..


ALL WHILE THE VOLCANOS AND COW FARTS ARE STILL GOING STR0NG...


You don’t have 98% of scientists agree on anything unless it is very easy math..




B) Then methane and water vapor would just be adding to to problem....



It isn’t like you can say...




“I was worried about getting shot with your 45, but if you have a 45 AND a glock 9... well then he’ll, go right ahead!”



Lol

C) THEN WHERE IS THE HEAT GOING!!!

The fact CO2 holds more heat is easily testable...


The fact we are producing a whole lot , is easily testable..



So where is your mechanism that is removing the heat absorbed by the extra CO2 we are producing.. and it can’t be space or the oceans.. it has to be something that is a new variable.. those things were already there..


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



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

It's not settled. But at least it's talked about and debated which in itself has caused humans as a whole to take care of our planet and immediate environments we live in.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

It has had that effect, and that, IMO, is a good thing.

Were the plan to actually be implemented, though, I fear it would have the opposite effect. I believe it would concentrate all power in the hands of a select few, and damage the economy so much that people would be unable to afford to live cleaner. After all, that's the real cause of pollution in China and India: if people are simply trying to survive, there's little chance they will care about a little trash or how pristine their air is... they'll just be thankful they can breathe it at all!

And of course, as we have already seen, we will end up ignoring the lead in the drinking water and the island of plastic trash in the Pacific and the air one can see because we'll be too busy making sure there's no carbon dioxide (and reducing our food supply in the process).

Maybe that's been the plan all along. Cleaning up waste is expensive, and we've already got a hell of a lot of cleaning to do. Maybe the idea was that if people quit worrying about real pollution, they'll accept a dirtier world and less power because they'll feel safe from that colorless, odorless, invisible trace gas... because we told them they were!

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

Hey Red did you exclude 0-H-O on purpose?

Also did you mean CH2 in the opening paragraph? I thought you were talking water molecules.

Thanks for all the good posts. Naturally with all my threads on the CO2 is causing ELE lie, I naturally like your observations.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Dfairlite


Conservative conspiracy theorists latch on to the most extreme projections on the most extreme models


You mean like saying the world will end in 12 years?



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: strongfp

It has had that effect, and that, IMO, is a good thing.

Were the plan to actually be implemented, though, I fear it would have the opposite effect. I believe it would concentrate all power in the hands of a select few, and damage the economy so much that people would be unable to afford to live cleaner. After all, that's the real cause of pollution in China and India: if people are simply trying to survive, there's little chance they will care about a little trash or how pristine their air is... they'll just be thankful they can breathe it at all!

And of course, as we have already seen, we will end up ignoring the lead in the drinking water and the island of plastic trash in the Pacific and the air one can see because we'll be too busy making sure there's no carbon dioxide (and reducing our food supply in the process).

Maybe that's been the plan all along. Cleaning up waste is expensive, and we've already got a hell of a lot of cleaning to do. Maybe the idea was that if people quit worrying about real pollution, they'll accept a dirtier world and less power because they'll feel safe from that colorless, odorless, invisible trace gas... because we told them they were!

TheRedneck


That's what happens with everything progressives try to "fix." Look at gun control. Nothing meaningful is happening because they're too busy trying to get meaningless AR bans and magazine capacity restrictions that would accomplish nothing. They see these shiny objects to go after and pursue it with everything they've got. Nevermind if it's actually a valuable object. It feels good to chase it, and joygasm if they actually achieve it. All the meaningful things that could've been accomplished with that energy in the meantime? Pfft, who cares?




top topics



 
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join