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.

 

Proof that "Man Made Climate Change" is for the weak minded sheep

page: 12
53
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Wow. Thank you so much. It's exactly the same way we do radio carbon dating, measuring the ratio of c14 to c12. Fascinating.

I'm going to read more about this, and these aren't counter arguments, just follow-up questions. Your post in the first link is fascinating, and I'm still digesting. In the second one I read this:


The idea that the man-made ozone hole and global warming have changed the Southern Ocean carbon sink is “disturbing on the one hand, but extremely interesting also,” says Jorge Sarmiento, an ocean modeler and Le Quéré’s former mentor at Princeton University.


Now, did anthropogenic CFCs definitively cause the ozone hole? I acknowledge that legislation occurred regarding the use of CFCs, and then subsequently the "hole" healed somewhat, but we're supposed to be critical regarding the relation between correlation and causation. I'd be really interested to know if you have on-hand something I can read regarding this.

I understand that fossil fuel combustion renders little 14C, which is a big problem with regards to carbon dating. However, we can count the layers, hence the age, of ice core samples, giving us a calibration. But one might reasonably expect that layers from greater than 6000 years ago would have largely homogeneous 12C concentrations, thus the measurements from beyond that age limit would only reflect only total carbon, not 14C concentration, which is a product of cosmic ray bombardment and perhaps solar activity. I believe the current max range of the Vostok samples is about 420,000 years before the present. If there WERE a cosmic or solar event or causation behind our current warming trend it would be difficult to detect its signal, given that humans have been pumping old air into the air. Be that as it may, I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, and I look forward to your response.

Very respectfully,
Zelun




posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun




If there WERE a cosmic or solar event or causation behind our current warming trend it would be difficult to detect its signal, given that humans have been pumping old air into the air. Be that as it may, I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, and I look forward to your response.

Apparently you are. We have instrumentation which measures solar irradiance directly as well as the means to produce reconstructions of the past.

Hint, the Sun is not getting warmer. Solar irradiance has been declining very slightly for 50 years or so, but not enough to overcome the influences of positive radiative forcing. The Sun has not been warming, it's been cooling. A bit.

lasp.colorado.edu...


It seems that you really haven't looked into it much. When I joined ATS I wasn't sure. But I looked into it. And have continued to do so. The Sun is not getting warmer, solar insolation is not increasing. Sure, maybe it's something that we don't know what it is, but CO2 sure fits the bill. But humans tend to take a short term view. Don't do anything unless you really, really have to. This time we've waited to long and all we can do is slow the process to buy some time to adapt and innovate.
edit on 10/9/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Do we have anything with regards to "galactic" irradiance? Stellar clusters? Proximity to the other members of the local group?

In all seriousness though, a best fit of that data would show a positive slope overall. Windowed from 1700 even more so. And as the units of the vertical axis is watts per square meter, that's a chart of received radiation from an external source(expressed as watts per square meter) over time.

How does this chart support your assertion irradiance is decreasing? From the peak just after 2010?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

How does this chart support your assertion irradiance is decreasing? From the peak just after 2010?


You mean the Solar maximum in 2014? Perhaps if you looked at the link I provided you wouldn't have need to ask that question but since I said that TSI has been declining for 50 years (while the planet has warmed) your question is moot.

edit on 10/9/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm sorry. I see I was being argumentative. I will review your kind reply, and shall respond.

Very respectfully,
Zelun



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

While I'm doing that, I'd like to give you a heads up on where my thinking is going on this, because I respect your mind and your obvious devotion to critical thinking. Even saying that last sentence make me feel uneasy because it'd be easy to interpret that as less than genuine. Not my intent. I really like reading your submissions to this forum.

So at first glance we've got a chart showing received energy, measured in watts per square meter, over three hundred years. Now, we know we didn't get satellites until the mid 20th century, so the best data is going to be after 1950, and the rest will be proxy data. So we take that with the proverbial grain of salt. What it seems to show, though is at least three sinusoidal rhythms interfering, a minor one on a period of about a decade, then another with a quarter wave on the order of 80 years(320 full wave) then another with a quarter wave on the order of 330 years, for a total period of 1320 years. That's assuming the trend is on a decline from the local maximum between 1970-1980. No way to be sure without more data. Bear in mind the solid data(read: non-proxy) only begins at max 1950, so your guess is as good as mine. It could be that the major wave has a length much longer than 1320 years. IF there are only three waves interfering, and we're right that 320 years is a quarter wave, then we can expect things to calm down, then actually become apocalyptic as another ice age ensues around the year 2050.

Then again, one must consider hysteresis:

The ground temp of the Earth does not rely solely upon received energy, you've astutely pointed out that a major component of the equation is the ability for the surface to retain energy in the form of heat. Hysteresis is the measure of an oscillatory energy system to temporally offset the effect from the cause of a change. The specific gravity of a substance is an example of a property which influences hysteresis, just as a coil in an electric circuit causes the current to lag voltage, and a capacitor causes voltage to lag current.

The "heat" coming from the sun, the sky, from space, bleeds off from the earth in one of two ways: radiation and conduction. Vacuum isn't the best conductor, so radiation is the primary way the earth cools. Just like the ISS.

So one side of the argument is "Earth is getting better at retaining heat, by restricting it's radiation into space, leading to heating" The other side is "Earth is receiving more energy from space, while radiating at the same rate, leading to heating." Your chart seems to indicate that Earth has been receiving more heat, since 1700 at least.

Now this might not be such a bad thing! Plants seem to thrive at higher co2 concentrations than we currently have. The planet once hosted land dwelling megafauna, which seemed to be supported by higher atmospheric pressure as well as higher oxygen and co2 content.

Feel free to fact f* me on any of this. I'm typing in stream of consciousness mode right now. Since at least 2 paragraphs ago. Just wanted to give you something to chew on while I go over the information you've been kind enough to provide.

Best as always,
Zelun



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvilAxis

originally posted by: 1point92AU
The Sun is and will always be the driver of the climate on Earth. Not man.


I'm not sure why you spam all your posts with this mantra as if anyone here thinks otherwise.

Obviously the sun is the primary driver of climate. Equally obviously, it is not the only driver of climate, otherwise the moon and earth, being the same distance from the sun, would enjoy the same climate.

The chemistry and structure of the oceans, the atmosphere, the earth's surface and interior are also drivers.


The entire premise of the OP states that the Sun is what drives the changing climate on Earth. Not man.

There are two topics here. The well documented facts that every scientific organization admits the Sun is what drives the climate of Earth...

and....

The false narrative that Man is the primary driver of the Earth's climate.

The "man made climate change" crowd are delusional and cannot present a single piece of correlative data that proves that Man is altering the course of the climate for decades to come. Not a single piece of correlative data.

Do you know what it means to be pragmatic?

Do you know the difference between a climatologist and a meteorologist? Here it is very simply. Climatologist study and predict long term weather patterns. Meteorologists predict short term weather patterns.

If a meteorologist's forecast accuracy drops to below 50% after a few weeks then their predictions are literally guesses. How exactly do you expect me to believe a climatologist is able to accurately forecast and predict long term global weather patterns if the short term guys are literally guessing after a few weeks?

It's literally the stupidest argument a person can pose that Man is dramatically altering global weather patterns when Man cannot even accurately predict short term weather patterns.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy



I've often wondered how they find the stats to measure (pre industrial revolution) I'm sure there are ways, I just don't know how you measure CO2 levels from 200 years ago.

Ice cores.
skepticalscience.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU



It's literally the stupidest argument a person can pose that Man is dramatically altering global weather patterns when Man cannot even accurately predict short term weather patterns.

That's a pretty impressive non-sequitur.

We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere. That is having an effect.

edit on 10/9/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun




Your chart seems to indicate that Earth has been receiving more heat, since 1700 at least.

About 0.1%, yes. About the same change we see between Solar max and Solar min and not enough, on its own, to account for the warming since then.

But TSI has been declining for 50 years or so, and yet the planet warms.
Less energy is being received, and yet the planet warms.

edit on 10/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 1point92AU



It's literally the stupidest argument a person can pose that Man is dramatically altering global weather patterns when Man cannot even accurately predict short term weather patterns.

That's a pretty impressive non-sequitur.

We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere. That is having an effect.


You should brush up on the definition of "non-sequitur".

Tell yourself whatever you need to connect those mythical dots.

Man can't predict short range weather patterns with any level of accuracy yet Man can predict long range weather patterns with extreme accuracy?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

As you said before, climatology is not the same as meteorology.
Climatologists are not predicting weather patterns.

Is the Sun getting warmer?
edit on 10/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 1point92AU

As you said before, climatology is not the same as meteorology.
Climatologists are not predicting weather patterns.



LOL...you do realize where the word "climatologist" is derived from right? Aside from "non-sequitur" you now need to add the word "climatologist" to your list of words to understand.

But more importantly why are you such a hypocrite? I mean come on man...here you are preaching a message that Man is going to kill the planet yet 95% of the products we all use on a daily basis derive from fossil fuels.

More than 6,000 products. The process of extracting, processing, and refining fossil fuels to support our way of life isn't going to change. Yet there you sit typing away on your fossil fuel derived keyboard using your daily fossil fuel derived products preaching about how "Man" is destroying the planet.

So you're the type of guy that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

Those are referred to as hypocrites.

Gandhi said it best man. "Be the change you want to see in the world".

Stop being a hypocrite.




edit on 10-10-2019 by 1point92AU because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

Yeah. Too much word salad to respond to.

Is the Sun getting warmer? Simple question.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 1point92AU

Yeah. Too much word salad to respond to.

Is the Sun getting warmer? Simple question.



You mean the truth hurts. You're a hypocrite and a liar. I expose you over and over.

And...it's so easy. Such a frail ego.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
After reading through all your replies, I feel the need to tell you, repeating something over and over....and over again doesn't change its correctness. The sun is what drives the earths climate - yes, I don't think anyone, Phage included; is disagreeing. Whats being argued is that what we're changing both on the ground and in the atmosphere is affecting the suns effect on our climate. It's not simply the amount of pollution we're putting into the atmosphere that's driving this change, its the sum total of global deforestation (co2 sequestration), pollution of both air and sea etc. Its the big picture - not the direct result of burning fossil fuels.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

I don't preach that man is going to kill the planet.

Not everything we use petroleum for involves combustion but the fact that we rely upon the combustion of fossil fuels does not change the fact that the combustion of fossil fuels is resulting in a warming of the atmosphere.


Is the Sun getting warmer?

edit on 10/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You're a hypocrite mate. Stop being part of the cycle that (according to you) is going to destroy the planet. You are a consumer of products derived from fossil fuels and you preach junk science.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

No need for ad homs.

Is the Sun getting warmer? Simple question.
Or have you changed your thesis?
edit on 10/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Badams
After reading through all your replies, I feel the need to tell you, repeating something over and over....and over again doesn't change its correctness. The sun is what drives the earths climate - yes, I don't think anyone, Phage included; is disagreeing. Whats being argued is that what we're changing both on the ground and in the atmosphere is affecting the suns effect on our climate. It's not simply the amount of pollution we're putting into the atmosphere that's driving this change, its the sum total of global deforestation (co2 sequestration), pollution of both air and sea etc. Its the big picture - not the direct result of burning fossil fuels.


You would be wrong then. Phage claims that Man is the driver of the change in the climate. Yet he later changed his position when I pointed out that a resource he used in a post to me made the same opening statement. He then tried to back track in his usual manner once I exposed the very source he used refuted his "man made" belief. It's laughable really.

I understand big picture and I've debated the ridiculous arguments here. The believers of "man made climate change" will never be pragmatic and they are easily led into baseless beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join