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: 7
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Exactly... we’ll honestly I doubt ANY scientific model predicted that, so I bet that is just compete nonsense that the conservative media knew the sheeple would gobble up..


Like 99% of the things people claim “an inconvenient truth” predicted, are nowhere in the movie.. just as a made up example.

People say “al gore said the world would end ib12 years!!”

And the yokels believe it without ever actually checking the movie..



Hell even the way they ALL joke every time it snows “hehe where is the global warming..”. Is such an obvious logical fallacy that it is really just calling people stupid to their faces.
edit on 16-7-2019 by JustJohnny because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

IT DOESNT MATTER IF WATER VAPOR HOLDS MORE HEAT BECAUSE THE WATER VAPOR IS NOT BEING TRADED OUT!!!

You have...

the Natural CO2 produced by the planet

PLUS

The natural water vapor and whatever else you listed..


PLUS

The CO2, water vapor, exc we are producing..


We are not swapping one for the other... there is no subtracting being done in the equation..


It doesn’t matter if you feel special for proving water vapor is worse... because the water vapor is ADDED to the rest..


OBVIOUSLY..

There is no getting around the VERY easy math involved.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: face23785

Exactly... we’ll honestly I doubt ANY scientific model predicted that, so I bet that is just compete nonsense that the conservative media knew the sheeple would gobble up..


Like 99% of the things people claim “an inconvenient truth” predicted, are nowhere in the movie.. just as a made up example.

People say “al gore said the world would end ib12 years!!”

And the yokels believe it without ever actually checking the movie..



Hell even the way they ALL joke every time it snows “hehe where is the global warming..”. Is such an obvious logical fallacy that it is really just calling people stupid to their faces.

Good points here is an answer to each question Al Gore raised

This is made by Phil Valentine a Talk show host who had researched and spoke with important Scientist who disagree with the UN conclusions and Scientist that mattered before and after this hoax was perpetrated upon us all.

Summarizes the situation exactly if you take the time to watch it, I promise.



An Inconsistent Truth is not some boring slideshow presentation like Gore's movie and indoctrination of our youth on the issue of global warming is coming to an end if filmmaker Phil Valentine has anything to say about it



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


ETA

Utube has moved the one I had saved to some BS that used the exact same page. The movie is out there but the trailer has been sacked too.


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



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

The green house gas effect is an actual scientific term..

“The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.[8] John Tyndall expanded her work in 1859 by measuring radiative properties of a wider spectrum of greenhouse gases.[9] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[10] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[11][12]”


From its history on Wikipedia..


See how easily people are propagandized??

How easy was it for me to check the history of the term green house effect?? It literally took 30 seconds.
edit on 16-7-2019 by JustJohnny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Will it change the rate CO2 absorbs heat??


Will it change the amount we are producing??

Will it provide a mechanism for removing the heat from the CO2 we are producing??


No, no and no..


I’ll still watch it likely..



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Arguing the rate of change is fair...


Hell arguing that raising the temp might be a good thing globally as Siberia would become a breadbasket is fair...

Pretending the overall concept of CO2 holding more heat and is producing enough to matter , are all a vast conspiracy for one country to pass a carbon tax, take your guns or make the gop look bad is retarded..

And obviously retarded..



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

HAHA! You caught me! H-C-H should have been O-C-O! Carbon dioxide.

O-H-O (more properly O-O-H+) is a transition state; it is extremely unstable. I didn't exclude it on purpose, but it's just one of those configurations that doesn't exist much, even with hydrogen bonding.

Good eyes! Thanks for the correction.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I often wonder why billionaires still build mega-mansions on oceanfront property, then tell the rest of us that the sea is rising so fast that we will all be dead in fifty years, so we need to be taxed more. They are not putting their money where their mouths are. Perhaps they profit from this hoax... Nah, that could never be true...



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterMcKill
a reply to: Dfairlite

I often wonder why billionaires still build mega-mansions on oceanfront property, then tell the rest of us that the sea is rising so fast that we will all be dead in fifty years, so we need to be taxed more. They are not putting their money where their mouths are.


Or they know it's bogus.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

Great. A self-proclaimed armchair scientist. And he's arguing with scientists.

Hoss, I am a research-level electrical engineer. I am quite well-versed on physics; I use it quite extensively in my work. What you are spouting is complete and utter poppycock that seems to have come from watching too many doom porn videos on YouTube.

We do not live in a greenhouse. A greenhouse works by insulating the enclosure in a material which is transparent to the visible light spectrum. Light of the visible and UV spectrum enters, it converted to heat when it strikes an opaque object, and any blackbody radiation is reflected or absorbed and conducted back into the interior air by the covering material. In addition, any conductive or convective heat exchange is insulated from the exterior.

The earth receives visible, UV, and IR light energy from the sun. Some of that energy, particularly UV, is absorbed by the ozone/oxygen/nitrogen molecules it encounters and is then re-emitted in a random direction. That reduces incoming radiation by approximately 50% each time it encounters a molecule and shields us from the dangerous solar rays. Everything else comes though to the ecosphere.

In the ecosphere, it encounters water vapor ranging form 0-10%. That absorbs and re-emits radiation again, further decreasing the amount of energy received by the ground depending on the amount of water vapor (aka 'clouds') encountered.

What's left hits the ground and is either absorbed, raising the temperature of the ground, or it reflected back into the atmosphere where it again passes through the same filters. The planet then radiates heat (IR) energy based on its blackbody characteristics and transfers some to adjacent materials. The IR energy re-radiated is then filtered through the atmospheric gases and some is absorbed and re-emitted based on what IR absorption spectrums it encounters. Each absorption and re-emission means about 50% of the energy is sent back in the direction it came.

Any energy that makes it through the atmosphere simply continues on into space.

Carbon dioxide is not "holding heat." It absorbs then re-emits it. The specific heat of carbon dioxide is actually quite low, meaning it cannot hold heat well. Water, on the other hand, holds heat very well; that's why water works in cooling systems like the one in your car. Try filling your radiator with carbon dioxide (an impossibility anyway, since carbon dioxide cannot exist as a liquid under atmospheric pressure) and you'll burn the motor up within a few miles, just as though you had filled it with air.

So far everything you have stated in this thread is wrong. Simply, provably wrong. You can scream that BS to the moon all day every day and it won't change a single thing... it will still be wrong. I strongly suggest you at least read a science book before you start continue making a fool of yourself.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterMcKill

It keeps the price lower so they can buy oceanfront land cheaper.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


As a scientist and engineer, I often am critical of claims of man-made global climate change (or whatever they're calling it).

I must remain the skeptic with this new data.

Haven't had a chance to delve too deeply into it, but I want to avoid confirmation bias.

So I will remain skeptical until I can ascertain the data.




posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

How very scientific of you! You should know better...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy

How very scientific of you! You should know better...

TheRedneck


Apologies.




posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

Yea and as a paid Scientist, I know we have real pollution issues and CO2 isn't one of them. It is a made up monster designed to scare people out of their taxes. There are SOME things we do that hurts the Ecosystem, it doesn't involve CO2 either.

If we concentrate on those things that keep us alive and animals protected, we will have a clean world and animal populationss will bounce back. If we pretend some guys who won't debate the real science (data unchangeable BS or so) but they are allowed to spew lies like Bill Nye does, well we get a brainwashed populace that do what it's told like good little soldiers. Then they will deny the truth when it smacks them right in the face. We see that here on ATS with left leaning people representing false data.

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



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Dfairlite


As a scientist and engineer, I often am critical of claims of man-made global climate change (or whatever they're calling it).

I must remain the skeptic with this new data.

Haven't had a chance to delve too deeply into it, but I want to avoid confirmation bias.

So I will remain skeptical until I can ascertain the data.



Well this is going on conflicting with the overall perception if you aren't taking it into consideration. I am referring to Magnetic pole shift issue.
www.nationalgeographic.com...




Yet in recent years, scientists noticed something unusual: Magnetic north's routine plod has shifted into high gear, sending it galloping across the Northern Hemisphere—and no one can entirely explain why.


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



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah that’s all very nice but am not really into debating climate change, it’s like trying to debate with a creationist at this point.

I am going to believe those 8 respected experts over your non-peer reviewed article that wouldn’t even pass a first year uni essay. I mean they reference themselves 4 out of the 6 times they actually bother to reference and 2 of those haven’t even been published.

Also those rebuttals are not all the same one of them actually lists 15 other articles that all reach different finding form your one non-peer reviewed, poorly referenced garbage article

It’s actually laughable.


It kinda sounds like you’re saying... mines written better than yours, so you’re wrong ???

Science isn’t a democracy is it?



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

CO2 would turn into dry ice in the frigid temperatures of the mesophere, around 60 miles high.

You'd think increased dry ice piling up around 60 miles high would increase clouds and thunder storms and lightning.

Too much thunder and lightning and you might rip a hole in the sky!

-- Chicken Little



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: strongfp
If man made global warming is such a sham, then why aren't polluting company's fighting against it harder?


Because at best there are companies making a fortune off of it and, at worst, most major corporations have managed to drive the discussion towards a direction of consumers conditioned to pay the companies' additional costs for them while railing against governments who are ultimately responsible for those new fees.

Money to be made. Al Gore was worth about $1 Million the last time he was actually employed, in 2000. His latest estimated net worth is now $300 Million and what has he done in the past 19 years? Been an ambassador for "preventing" climate change. It's a money making scam and just may be the largest, most fallen for dupe in human history.


It probably is the largest scam ever. Only aliens running our gov behind closed doors would be bigger. Looks like someone is trotting that idea out on ATS.



posted on Jul, 18 2019 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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


And instead of acting maniacal we start rubbing our hands together and putting on our best readers. It helps if we get down to business with the nuts and bolts. It is true that factual data is not being compared properly to the whole data set IMO. We have seen them wiggle the goal post to make their models look better and we have seen the so called smart ATSer forgo the Scientific process for these discussion of AGW. But will hold the Scientific process as important when it makes a case that one likes and still fights for the bad data repeatedly.

edit on 18-7-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join