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: 9
51
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I think humans are contributing to the problem by belching massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere as evidenced by rising acidity levels in the oceans. The single biggest contributors are China and India who get 50% or more of their electricity from coal burning power plants.

I dont know why people get so hostile on this topic. Nothing is going to change in our lifetimes.




posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
I dont know why people get so hostile on this topic. Nothing is going to change in our lifetimes.

People started getting all wound up about it when it got political and somebody decided that they could use it either to make money or gain political leverage. How it got to be that those commie liberals were supporting the idea of anthropomorphic global warming and that the racist conservatives were dismissing it is a surprisingly long and sad story.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
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.

I looked everywhere - where did you get this chart?



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I made it in excel.

You can find the data here and make your own if you'd like:
link



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: tanstaafl

I made it in excel.

You can find the data here and make your own if you'd like:
link


Oh, ok, thanks... I thought maybe you'd gotten it off of some government website.

It is impressive in its visualization of the ridiculousness of arguing about CO2...



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Isn't this whole discussion like two people bickering about who started the house fire from in the kitchen while the house burns down around them?

I mean, ok, I get it, there's lots of reasons for lots of different people to choose a side on this, but at the end of the day does it matter who/what caused it?

Is everyone so concerned with who to blame that nobody cares that we're looking at unlivable planetary conditions in a couple hundred years? Why is it so hard to just agree that we should be trying to slow/stop/fix the problem before we kill the species?



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes, except the fire is invisible and the effects are negligible.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes, except the fire is invisible and the effects are negligible.


Are they? Hottest year on record. If every subsequent year is hotter its not a huge leap of logic to see what that means for humanity.

Are you suggesting that the perpetual record breaking will reverse in due time and things will go back to normal on their own?



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer



Are they? Hottest year on record.


Not anywhere in the US.



If every subsequent year is hotter its not a huge leap of logic to see what that means for humanity.


More habitable land.



Are you suggesting that the perpetual record breaking will reverse in due time and things will go back to normal on their own?


Yes.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

Are they? Hottest year on record. If every subsequent year is hotter its not a huge leap of logic to see what that means for humanity.

Are you suggesting that the perpetual record breaking will reverse in due time and things will go back to normal on their own?


What is normal?

We left a 500 year mini ice age around 1850, and we are still slightly in the big ice age... So what is normal, what is caused by man, and what is a political hack job to get more taxes/control people? I would lean towards much of what we see is more on the normal side with humans having some influences, but not the primary culprit.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

That's fair, the records broken this year have been in Europe I believe.

Is more habitable land really a solution though. If the majority of US land becomes desert are we going to annex Canada to steel that cooler climate area (and is that seriously a positive plan to use as a first solution)?

At what point would you consider the assumption that the trend will reverse incorrect (after 50 more years, 100, never)?



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer

Are they? Hottest year on record. If every subsequent year is hotter its not a huge leap of logic to see what that means for humanity.

Are you suggesting that the perpetual record breaking will reverse in due time and things will go back to normal on their own?


What is normal?

We left a 500 year mini ice age around 1850, and we are still slightly in the big ice age... So what is normal, what is caused by man, and what is a political hack job to get more taxes/control people? I would lean towards much of what we see is more on the normal side with humans having some influences, but not the primary culprit.


Rather than determine some reference for whats normal, what if we just based it on human lifestyles for what would reasonable be considered easy/comfortable climate to live in. If projections show the trend turning half the contiguous US into desert, wouldn't it behoove us to see if we could reverse that trend before half our available area is wasteland? Is the argument because it would cost money and who wants to pay for something that won't matter in most folks lifetimes?



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Isn't this whole discussion like two people bickering about who started the house fire from in the kitchen while the house burns down around them?

No, its more like two people bickering about who left the top to the toothpaste off, while the whole time the water is running.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




At what point would you consider the assumption that the trend will reverse incorrect (after 50 more years, 100, never)?


It's hard to say. As xtozero pointed out these trends are massive and predate humanity. I'd say at least a few millennia, maybe longer.



Is more habitable land really a solution though.


Yes.



If the majority of US land becomes desert are we going to annex Canada to steel that cooler climate area (and is that seriously a positive plan to use as a first solution)?


No need to annex canada. We've got plenty of land up north. But I would imagine some will move to canada.

As for whether it's a positive solution, I don't think there is a solution. There's only adaptation. The climate will change with or without us, it will do so slowly as it always does. We can either adapt, move, or die.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Ok. What if the trend accelerates beyond your assumption or in contradiction to your expectations? Lets say in 20 years the temp has jumped 15 degrees on average. Is your assumption that the changes, although entirely atypical from any previous historic period, still not anthropogenic?

I'm just trying to see if there is some 'break-point' at which even those who are adamant that climate change is natural and in no way influenced at all by man may suddenly have doubts about their position. If not the aforementioned scenario, could you imagine a scenario/situation that would cause you to re-assess your position?



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer



Ok. What if the trend accelerates beyond your assumption or in contradiction to your expectations? Lets say in 20 years the temp has jumped 15 degrees on average. Is your assumption that the changes, although entirely atypical from any previous historic period, still not anthropogenic?


I wouldn't say we have zero impact, just negligible. But to your scenario, I don't think that's unprecedented. Take a look:


But here's where the real sticking point is, for me. We don't know how much we are responsible for and we won't know how much we're responsible for. The only way to stop our portion (if we have one) is to destroy the world's economies. For what? So people don't have to move slowly over the next few hundred years? It's just a terrible cost/benefit. What happens if we aren't responsible for it and we do that and it still gets warmer and warmer? Was it worth it?

It's simply not something to worry about because if it happens fast, there's nothing we can do about it. If it happens slow, we will adapt. If it doesn't happen at all, great.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

Rather than determine some reference for whats normal, what if we just based it on human lifestyles for what would reasonable be considered easy/comfortable climate to live in. If projections show the trend turning half the contiguous US into desert, wouldn't it behoove us to see if we could reverse that trend before half our available area is wasteland? Is the argument because it would cost money and who wants to pay for something that won't matter in most folks lifetimes?


Sure, what do you suggest that isn't most likely a political hack, it doesn't help the socialist side of the liberals are trying to use this all for their agendas.

Lets look at the big elephant in the room that everyone seems to not see. ASIA, if you are talking pollution, CO2, plastics, over harvesting, land destruction...then look no further then them. We are small fries to them in all this, so outlawing plastic bags in Portland will do what? Creating Cap and Trade will do what outside of overtax the poor? Force people to use technology that isn't prime time yet will do what? Make people reduce their foot prints down to 800 sq ft per family will do what exactly etc etc

Do not forget that we are approaching a Maunder Minimum in 2020 that could see very cool trends for the next 50 years.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




Do not forget that we are approaching a Maunder Minimum in 2020 that could see very cool trends for the next 50 years.


The Maunder Minimum was a period of low solar activity which began in the mid 17th century. There was also similar, though shorter period referred to as the Dalton Minimum. Saying that we are approaching a Maunder Minimum makes no sense.

If you meant to say that we are approaching a solar minimum you would be correct. We are leaving solar cycle 24 and the minimum which denotes the transition to solar cycle 25 is predicted to occur before the end of 2020, with the next cycle being similar to #24 in regard to the level of activity and the duration of the minimum preceding it.

As far as a cooling trend, no so much. After all, solar activity has been on the decline for 50 years or so while temperatures have continued to rise. With the highest temperatures being recorded during the lowest period of activity. In other words, not much of a correlation between temperatures and solar activity.



edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

The Maunder Minimum was a period of low solar activity which began in the mid 17th century. There was also similar, though shorter period referred to as the Dalton Minimum. Saying that we are approaching a Maunder Minimum makes no sense.



Yes you are correct. I should have said this next cycle will be like another Maunder Minimum...happy now?

Its a grand solar minimum that is expected to last 30+ years, and they only come every 300 to 400 years...

edit on 2-8-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




Its a grand solar minimum that is expected to last 30+ years, and they only come every 300 to 400 years...

Interesting claim, since sunspot records only go back 400 years.

In any case the worries about cooling, even with a grand solar minimum, seem to be just another Nibiru.

Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st‐century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than−0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades.

www.pik-potsdam.de...



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join