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: 5
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018




If the next solar minimum is a Maunder Minimum then we'll see temperatures like our ancestors saw in the late 1600's and early 1700's.
The "Maunder Minimum" was a particular event. There were other prolonged periods of low solar activity as well.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? Was low solar activity the cause of the "Little Ice Age?" Are you aware that the "Little Ice Age" began well before the Maunder Minimum and persisted afterwards?

While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.
www.research.ed.ac.uk...

Perhaps if there are a number of significant volcanic eruptions and perhaps if were are entering a prolonged period of reduced solar activity we will see reduced temperatures. But without the volcanic activity, the "best" we can expect is a decrease in the rate of warming. While it lasts.

Or maybe a comet will hit us.

edit on 10/4/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Yes, the LIA was a northern hemispheric phenomenon and as such had an effect on the average global temperature. This does not mean that there was a cooling in the southern hemisphere at the same time. As the northern hemisphere recovered from the LIA, the average global temperature rose because northern hemisphere temperatures are part of the average.

edit on 10/4/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Phage I have a question for you ( and kudos as well, I respect your scientific abilities) there is no land mass under the ice at the "northpole"

the land mass is in the southern "pole" is this not correct?


So any ice that melts in the north is not over a land mass per se, it's mostly water under it.

How can that translate to being ice on land?

it always amazes me that folks don't know the "northpole" is over water, ontop of ice.

Or did I really sleep through Geography in school?

Yes I could look this up, but you have influence on ATS that I do not.
edit on 4-10-2019 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati




So any ice that melts in the north is not over a land mass per se, it's mostly water under it. How can that translate to being ice on land?

There is a great deal of ice on Greenland. There are glaciers in "the north."

There is a secondary effect of a loss of Arctic sea ice though. Less ice results in a lower albedo in the region, which leads to more warming.
edit on 10/4/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: 1point92AU

Let me be honest and directly to the point.


What does it matter if it is real or not? Really?


Here is why, the only "solutions" allowed are Financial Scams.

The push and alarmism is directly tied to pushing Financial Scams, Carbon Credit Scams, Taxes, and Special Interest Control & Regulation.

I have seen quite a few "real solutions" but nobody will talk about those since the "Right" people don't end up with Power, Money, and Control.


There you have it.



Because if it's Man-Made, then the Democrats will make Billions of dollars in Carbon Taxes from all of us and will do nothing but steal it like they always do and we may or may not all die. If it's Climate change from the SUN, we survive or we don't...but the Democrats don't rip us all off by playing us for fools. That's the difference



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Phage

The Sun is the driver for weather patterns on Earth. Not man.

Just like the Earth's atmosphere is much larger than you ever knew.



That one is a denier of reality but has great graphs. Well, except that they truly prove nothing from ANY influence of man is happening to the Climate. Whatever is happening has already been shown repeatedly by Geologist and actual Climate Scientists, like Dr Ball or Dr Christy, to be the natural pattern of living in THIS solar system.

Further:

As a weak level Zero Civilization according to Dr. Michio Kaku, nothing is going to stop what the Sun and the magnetic fields are doing to us RIGHT NOW.

We simply are not advanced enough to alter the Earths Average Temperature more than a degree actually and with 40 + F change in daily temps LOGIC SAYS it is statistically insignificant change.The change is less than the error calculations allow. End of story!



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician




Because if it's Man-Made, then the Democrats will make Billions of dollars in Carbon Taxes from all of us and will do nothing but steal it like they always do and we may or may not all die.

Not necessarily, if energy companies pay those taxes.

The fight against climate change is a marathon, not a sprint. The policies we craft today must fuel innovation and research for many decades to come. Public investment in clean-energy and carbon-capture technologies is laudable, but it’s not enough on its own to reduce global emissions, because of the “leakage” problem. Carbon taxes have, to be sure, been met with intense political resistance in many places where they’ve been proposed, including the U.S. But they are the most pragmatic solution and — importantly for conservatives — could be designed to be revenue-neutral and thus not result in an expansion of government. If Republicans hope to craft meaningful climate legislation in everyone’s long-term interests, a carbon tax is a necessary first step.

www.nationalreview.com...


If it's Climate change from the SUN
It isn't. The Sun is not getting warmer.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   
If Greenhouse effect including CO2 was the real problem:
1 The mouthpieces in powers would not use airplanes and cars. They would prove that it is a real thing by their own actions.

2 The politicians would have forced all fission reactors to use the heated water for heating houses and not allow it to be dumped in the ocean. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and this heated water is increasing ice melting.

I am concerned about bad waste management for instance plastic, chemicals allowed to arrive in the oceans.

We need more scientist/engineers to create better automated solution for waste handling. US should put 80% of their military spending on this for a decade and we might see an engineering miracle. It would also be a good way to drain the Military industrial complex and maybe end these stupid wars US/CIA keep starting. Democrats no new taxes, if you want a green new deal take the money from the Military industrial complex.

As long as CO2 is under 600 PPM I am not worried since it is needed for photosynthesis and the level is very low compared to what the plants want for maximum growth.
edit on 4-10-2019 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: 1point92AU

Yet clouds form from the particulate exhaust from industrial plants. This alters the local weather to an extent. Skyscrapers cause turbulent winds that also alters the local weather.

Industrialization has caused a 45% increase of atmospheric CO2, this is significant in terms of climatology.

I majored in meteorology, this is a hell of a lot more complex than 4th grade science.

You are essentially burying your head in the sand because the notion human activity can affect the weather and climate does not align with you confirmation bias.
SO2 causes pollution that blocks the sun.

I measure SO2 every day at several monitors right now. I can tell you that the Volcano's will produce much more in a day of both CO2 and SO2. Ozone at ground level is bad and the thing that hurts ozone at the edge of our atmosphere (Stratosphere) is the lack of a stable magnetic field.

If we can get China and India to play along and match what we have accomplished here in the US cleaning the air, we have this whipped. I say that because the atmosphere and ambient breathable air truly IS cleaner than since the turn of the Century in 1800. That was a time when the cities were cesspools but the land wasn't. Now as we have grown in knowledge we have balanced the amount of pollution is allowed to stop harming the ECOSYSTEM we live in. Except for water there are issues here, we have greatly improved the soil and air quality.

ETA

Carbon Monoxide of complete combustion is the thing we cleaned out of the air that makes more CO2. Carbon taxes are about something natural if they are picking at CO2.


edit on 4-10-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




I can tell you that the Volcano's will produce much more in a day of both CO2 and SO2.

Perhaps, for short periods of time, with a really big eruption. But we do it constantly and consistently.


Earth's total annual out-gassing of CO2 via volcanoes and through other geological processes such as the heating of limestone in mountain belts is newly estimated by DCO experts at roughly 300 to 400 million metric tonnes (0.3 to 0.4 Gt).

www.eurekalert.org...


Manmade emissions in 2018 alone topped 37 gigatonnes.

"The amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by anthropogenic (manmade) activity in the last 10-12 years (is equivalent) to the catastrophic change during these events we've seen in Earth's past," Edmonds told AFP.

phys.org...

edit on 10/4/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You have no standing in this field IMO, anymore.

Why? Because you refuse to admit you are wrong on this. you have been too awesome on this board in the past for me to ignore. But right now, you are wrong. I am sorry. I do think you are smart. You are pouring your energy into something clearly you don't understand.

Clearly, you do understand Astronomy and I would strongly encourage you to rethink your position on the several subjects related to that which you have been made aware of in these threads over the last decade. And yet you still refuse to accept the facts.

I am not going to fight a reference battle with you, it wouldn't matter. I have repeatedly given you the data and you just deflect.

Carry on with your bad self Phage.

Meanwhile, the Solar Cycle moves thru its gyrations and the current location of the Magnetic pole is like the NFL players when they sign up, not for long.


edit on 4-10-2019 by Justoneman because: grammar



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I will take your opinion under consideration.

Do you think those geologists are lying?



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

I will take your opinion under consideration.

Do you think those geologists are lying?


I think the politics has muddle everything.
We need to step back and look hard at the things that are logical. CO2 is not logical to worry about at all. 3000 PPB and I am with you we would need to bring it down from 3000 but we are at an all time low of CO2 prior to the last 50 years. Food stuff IS better off with much more CO2 and sure is dependent on Sun and nutrients such as water. We know for sure CO2 is natural and the plants suck it in like its their Crack.

edit on 4-10-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




but we are at an all time low of CO2 prior to the last 50 years.

No we aren't.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
...
Thing is, according to the Milankovich cycles, the planet should have been cooling for the past few thousand years. It was, until a hundred or so ago. It's going to be a long time before the Earth starts warming because of the Milkankovitch cycles.
ossfoundation.us...
...


The thing is the Earth was warming early in 1600, and even about 10-20 or so years before. According to global borehole temperatures the Earth's surface was already warming over 150-170 years before the Industrial revolution started. It was also warming 250-270 years before the height of the industrial revolution.



geothermal.earth.lsa.umich.edu...

The thing is, despite you lying for years in the forums claiming that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1980s, in fact the opposite had been happening.




October 28, 2004

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
...


The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years

Even then it is also known that the Roman warming Period was warmer than any time in the 20th or 21st century, and even the Medieval Warming period was warmer. So during those periods something else must have been happening that we simply do not know about.

Even in 2007 atmospheric psysicists realized that even when certain solar activity was at it's lowest, for some strange reason the visible light from the sun had increased and was/is warming the Earth more when it should have been cooler. The lead scientist even speculated that this could be


The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.

Quirin Schiermeier

An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.

Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.
...
Sun surprise

The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...


Declining solar activity linked to recent warming




edit on 4-10-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Thank you, for that follow up.

I have several threads on this and I appreciate your contribution to the facts as I know them.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: MrConspiracy

The excess CO2 is indeed from human activity. To deny this is like denying the plastic in the ocean is from humans.

www.newscientist.com...
...
This article was from 2007, now the CO2 levels are up to 410ppm.


Wrong... As the Earth warms it's atmosphere can contain more water vapor, which increases warming. As the Earth warms, atmospheric CO2 is also increased naturally.

To claim that "the amount of CO2 we have is just because of mankind" is one of the most absurd arguments made by leftists like yourself.

Earth has been undergoing many changes. Those changes include global earthquake activity, as well as an increase in geothermal and volcanic activity.

The molten iron river, deep below Earth's surface, in the northern hemisphere trebled in speed around 2016.

Molten iron river discovered speeding beneath Russia and Canada

An increase in the molten river implies an increased pressure in Earth's surface which would increase geothermal and volcanic activity.

There are only ~150-155 land volcanoes, and wee are not monitoring all of them. However, there is an estimate over 3 million underwater volcanoes, and that's not counting vents and fissures all from which CO2 is released into Earth's atmosphere by the increased activity occurring to the northern hemisphere molten iron river.

Then there is the fact that Earth's magnetic field, and even our sun's magnetic poles, have been weakening.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now



Plus we have had an increase in cosmic rays and x-rays coming out of the solar system, which is so strong that it is affected Earth's surface.

Cosmic Rays, especially X-Rays, The Solar System is Receiving Have been Increasing

The above link is from 2016. This trend has continued to increase.

Stratospheric Radiation on Earth Continues to Increase.

And it is still increasing.







[url=http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/onlinequery.cgi?station=OULU&startday=04&startmonth=09&startyear=1990&starttime=00%3A00&endday=04&endmonth=10&e ndyear=2019&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&outputmode=csv&picture=on]Link




Link



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The thing is the Earth was warming early in 1600, and even about 10-20 or so years before. According to global borehole temperatures the Earth's surface was already warming over 150-170 years before the Industrial revolution started. It was also warming 250-270 years before the height of the industrial revolution.

Yes, things did warm up after the little ice age. We know that. Reduced volcanic activity, the Sun regaining a more "normal" level of activity. But didn't you notice that sudden change right around 1900? The curve gets a lot steeper right there.



The thing is, despite you lying for years in the forums claiming that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1980s, in fact the opposite had been happening.
Your source does not say that Solar activity has not been declining since the 1980s. The data shows that it has been. Longer than that, actually.




Even in 2007 atmospheric psysicists realized that even when certain solar activity was at it's lowest, for some strange reason the visible light from the sun had increased and was/is warming the Earth more when it should have been cooler
Since the study covered 2004-2007 there was is way of knowing if that was unusual. But it is useful knowledge.
Your source:

"The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations," he says. "But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming."

"All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic," agrees Lockwood. "It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science."

www.nature.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: contextual
a reply to: infolurker

you know the people paid to push those fallacies get their money from the oil companies, right?
it's not the rich scientists versus you, its texaco and the like versus science.
if scientists were lying their credibility would be shot to pieces, it isn't.


No, stupid people make that argument...
Thousands of scientists disagree with the AGW claim, and most of them don't work for "oil companies."

In fact, many of the scientists whom disagree with the AGW claim have been scientists whom were part, or are part of the IPCC.

Only dumb people need to make that argument you are making because you have no real counter-argument to offer.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




To claim that "the amount of CO2 we have is just because of mankind" is one of the most absurd arguments made by leftists like yourself.
Who said that? Not I.



The above link is from 2016. This trend has continued to increase.
Yes. Because Solar Maximum was in 2014. That's the way it works. 11 year (roughly) cycle and all that.


Seems to be leveling off now that we are near or at Solar minimum. Didn't get as high as it did at the previous minimum. Soon it will start declining as we approach the next maximum.

edit on 10/4/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join