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: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

Wow, insulting people from the start, an excellent way of making friends.

The milantrovich cycles takes tens of thousands of years, it doesn't happen in just a few generations, and if it did happen, everybody alive on this planet today will be long dead, the only thing that will be around to see it will be the pyramids.

It is not a valid argument against man made climate change, only very extreme disasters like a supervolcano can do that, and the global climate change would take effect about a year after, like the mt Tambora eruption in 1815.

Weak minded sheeple like me don't just dump science facts without knowing what the hell they mean, weak minded sheeple like me have textbooks, we don't just phone it in because internet, and we weak minded sheeple like me know how to science.




posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

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.


Don't you remember that "correlation doesn't imply causation"?... Or do you only use that argument when it serves you?...


originally posted by: Phage
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.


ROFLMAO... Only Phage would claim that these sources are saying the sun's activity was declining(that it couldn't be the sun causing warming...)



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

Actually they do say the contrary to your claims, except for the strange change in the sun that occurred, or is still occurring, that when other factors in the Sun's activity was decreasing the visible light being emitted by the Sun had/has been increasing. That increase had been warming Earth as well...



originally posted by: Phage
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...



Ahh, it had to be Phage... So when another scientist, whom was not part of the study, is asked what he thinks you seem to think his OPINION matters more...

No Phage, you should know better. An opinion which is not supported by the study doesn't equal to proof...

I wonder why you like to ignore the opinion of other real scientists whom have not been lying like your AGW scientists were lying for decades?...

Heck,what about the latest example of a former alarmist whom has become a skeptic?...


By Joseph Valle | August 1, 2019 5:14 PM EDT

The “science is settled” liberal media don’t want people to know there are scientists, even award-winning ones, who dispute the idea of catastrophic global warming.

Because outlets ignore and censor such scientists, curious individuals must turn to other sources such as English journalist James Delingpole’s columns or podcast, the Delingpod. On the July 25 podcast, he interviewed award-winning, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Dr. Rex Fleming about his conversion from global warming alarmism to skepticism..

The scientist also discussed manipulation of data within NOAA, accusing a few individuals offiddlingwith ocean and atmospheric data under the Obama Administration. He also brought up the prominent scientific organizations censorship of viewpoints by refusing to publish skeptical scientific papers.

Fleming admitted that for years he supported and “funded projects” by scientists attributing global warming to carbon dioxide in spite ofhaving doubtswhile working for NOAA.

Eventually I just read enough to realize its a totally wrong direction,he said.And so, in the past ten years, Id say, Ive been on the other side.His shifting views made it far more difficult to be published though.

Although Fleming holds an undergraduate degree in math and a Ph.D. in atmospheric science, he could not get published by prominent U.S. scientific groups. He is also the author of The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change.
...

NOAA Scientist Turns Climate Skeptic, Recounts Censorship

Go figure huh Phage?...


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



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Don't you remember that "correlation doesn't imply causation"?... Or do you only use that argument when it serves you?...
The phrase applies if no valid mechanism for the correlation is available. Rising surface temperatures would be a pretty good mechanism to account for the borehole records. Isn't that the point you're trying to make by showing the borehole data?



Only Phage would claim that these sources are saying the sun's activity was declining
I didn't say that. I said that solar activity has been declining for 50 years or so. I said that because the data shows it to be the case.


Actually they do say the contrary to your claims, except for the strange change in the sun that occurred, or is still occurring, that when other factors in the Sun's activity was decreasing the visible light being emitted by the Sun had/has been increasing.
The study does not say there has been a change in the Sun, strange or otherwise. The study covered a three year part of the solar cycle. That's not enough data to say either way.


So when another scientist, whom was not part of the study, is asked what he thinks you seem to think his OPINION matters more...
Well, he is familiar with the data. But here is what Haigh herself says:

If the climate were affected in the long term, the Sun should have produced a notable cooling in the first half of the twentieth century, which we know it didn't, she says.


But she hasn't changed her mind like Fleming.
www.carbonbrief.org...
edit on 10/4/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
... we don't just phone it in because internet, and we weak minded sheeple like me know how to science.


EEEHHH?...

WTH does "I know how to science" means? That makes no sense whatsoever...



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The phrase applies if no valid mechanism for the correlation is available. Rising surface temperatures would be a pretty good mechanism to account for the borehole records.


And contrary to your claims other factors have been occurring which could account for most of the warming, and they have nothing to do with CO2...



originally posted by: Phage
The study does not say there has been a strange change in the Sun. The study covered a three year part of the solar cycle.


I even excerpted that part Phage...



...
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


originally posted by: Phage
But she hasn't changed her mind.


How about you excerpt exactly what she said?



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



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
... we don't just phone it in because internet, and we weak minded sheeple like me know how to science.


EEEHHH?...

WTH does "I know how to science" means? That makes no sense whatsoever...


My guess there is another language issue occurring. Or it is a very young person.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




And contrary to your claims other factors have been occurring which could account for most of the warming,
No. Not really. Rising CO2 levels are the best candidate.


I even excerpted that part Phage..
You mean the part that says "could be?" They just don't know because they only looked at three years of data.

"What we can't really do at this stage is to extrapolate from this three-year period to any longer period - we can't even say that [what we've seen] has happened on previous solar cycles," said principal researcher Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London.

"If you could extrapolate... the climate models have been over-estimating the Sun's effect on temperature [rise]."

www.bbc.com...




She states it is a possibility because the sun has not acted like this for the 100 years+ we have been observing it.
I cannot find that statement from her in the article.


What's more, during the Maunder minimum the sun's activity did decrease and instead we had the Little Ice Age.
The LIA began before the MM and continued afterwards. The MM may have had a small effect but not enough to be considered the cause.

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...

Wait. Are you saying that a prolonged period of reduced solar activity won't cause an ice age? Good for you. The science agrees.


How about you excerpt exactly what she said?
Then I'd be cherry picking. She's had a long career. Suffice it to say, she knows that CO2 is causing warming and that we are producing too much of it. She is hopeful that we can do something about that.

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

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



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

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


That is the problem.

It's a big false dichotomy. It goes :

"Either A:

Climate change is man made AND all these new regulations are the answer!!!!"

Or B:

Climate change is not man made."



There is no option C:

"Climate change is man made, and the regulations are still stupid because they will do virtually nothing to change it"



It's too bad, because I'm in favor of choosing Option C.

The only thing that's going to save us from climate change is to stop the population in the third world from continuing to grow. For that, we need the Vatican and some influential Mullahs to get on board, and do what is in the best interests of their sheep (for once.)

The third world is full of uneducated people who can't think for themselves, and do whatever their religious leaders say. The Pope could save the world, if he wanted to. Or a few priests, if they had guts, and were brave enough to say what they know to be true about right and wrong.


edit on 4-10-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: last line



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU
Wait a minute?

Let me get this straight? Since I have little use to being in the loop of things on people and there believes. Ya I am that out of the loop.

But your saying that for the past years, people somehow think that they are more influential in planetary or galactic effects and there effects on the earth, then the freaking sun? These fools thing they can outweigh and outmuscle the freaking sun? Humans vs the sun is not only not only in the wrong dam weightclass, its on a whole complete other freaking scale and dimension.

Now that is some retarded #. Like an ant thinking it can benchpress Mt Everest, and equally as ridiculous.

If you could turn off the sun for 30 minutes and see how many millions die or the effect it would have just in that short timespan. Last time there was a solar eclipse out here were I am at, was in summer, people were out in there tank tops and shorts, it lasted a second or two, but people were running indoors to grab a shirt because they got to cold, and missed the whole show.

So ya! Man made climate change equals squat in the scope of things. Thats not to say you cant # were you eat or ruin your habitat, but that may be the total sum of us effecting the earth or sun or anything, only as far as we effect ourselves.

Maybe one day when we all go extinct, whatever comes after will give us the award for being the most pretentious species that ever walked this earth. So at least we will win at something.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Where are you getting the idea that the sun is getting brighter?

www.newsweek.com...

According to Nasa, it's not getting brighter at all. It's decreasing.


I think perhaps you got the idea from one of these articles:

stardate.org...

www.forbes.com...

But that article is talking about a very gradual increase that has been happening over billions of years. It was cooler in the dinosaur era than it is today.

But the whole of all human history is barely the blink of an eye on that time scale. It doesn't explain the melting ice caps. It doesn't come anywhere near explaining it.

That increase is the ant in your analogy. Or perhaps a better analogy would be a stalactite in a cave, gradually growing to lift the weight.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Huh? You responding to me?

Sorry bro. But on the message board it said you responded to me. But you must have erased the whole gladofwarthethird thing.

Its semi confusing.

But if your shooting in the wind with what you said.

The sun is not getting brighter, you dont really see the sun per say. You see a diffusion of light from the sun in the atmosphere, the farthest away when were from the sun is in the summer months, of july, and the closest is in the winter months.

If you want to get a better look at the diffusion of electromagnetic spectrum vie sunlight. Go to Australia when they have summer, as I heard thats when the sun is closest to the earth in its orbit. Why do you think its freaking cold across a whole lot of the globe around that time? Because having sand everywere sucks thats why.

To tell the truth not even sure what your trying to say. But the sun being brighter or dimmer is more an effect of the planets atmosphere and electromagnetic spectrum and field. And also who is measuring the output? And how long have they done it?

You know a few thousand years ago there were icewalls miles high not far from were I am at now in western Washington. And now? Nope dont see one freaking ice wall at all.

Basically what I am saying is that the sun has been pretty stable for millions and millions of years. And when its not, millions and millions of species die off. But thats far from the whole story now isnt it? Because it always is.

Just like if it were summer for a great swath of the globe when in its aphelion farthest stage, and if it were in its perihelion closest stage, even that alone were to be switched by a pole shift or magic or whatever you prefer. That alone and even with the sun having no change whatsoever in its output, would completely change everything on, or under, or in the sky's of this planet and things would be a whole lot different on the face of the world then you see today.

So ya. The sun has not changed much, it may go through cycles, but nothing drastic in likely hundreds of millions of years. And even a slight blip has an effect on things, and much more then would all the plastic all of humanity has produced. And again, all the ice ages, going back millions of years, and all the Sahara going back millions of years. Those were all just blips in the sun, or the earths natural cycles and machination.

if there were any great change. Humans would not be around today. And if there is any great change, humans will not be around in the future. Simple as that. And yes even a blip can kill off all species on this planet. A giant change need not apply, for its just that easy. If you dont believe me, look at all the stuff you all dug up. The history of this world is one of extinctions, its written in the bones and in the earth and everywhere around you.

Climate change happened, is happening, and will happen.

I think people confuse and politicize climate change, with habitat management and centralized pollution, which is just for the most part in the habitat column, more then the climate change column. This is what happens when politics that most popular of human pastimes is mashed into something that it does not belong or fit.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Over the last 35 years, the Sun has been getting weaker. That's what Nasa says.

It's kind of like the stock market. The stock market has its highs and lows over short periods of time, but over the long run it's always going up (if only to keep up with inflation.)

Similarly, the Sun goes through short term and long term cycles.

The long term cycle is that it's always going up, as it ages. In a billion more years or so, it will someday expand into Earth's orbit and wipe everything out.

The short term, most recent cycle, is a decrease.

To quote the article:

""These data show us that the Sun is not getting brighter with time. The brightness does follow the sunspot cycle, but the level of solar activity has been decreasing the last 35 years. The value at minimum may be decreasing as well, although that is far more difficult to prove. Perhaps the upcoming solar minimum in 2020 will help answer that question."
"

www.newsweek.com...



Basically, we're on our way to a solar minimum. But the ice caps are melting.

Are we all gonna die!!?!? No. But higher temperatures will mean less rainfall world wide, which will dramatically reduce agricultural production. People are gonna starve. And that is going to suck for them.

In the first world, grocery prices will go up. In the third world, well..... it won't be pretty.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
No. Not really. Rising CO2 levels are the best candidate.


Two negatives makes it a positive Phage. Water Vapor is the greenhouse gas that accounts for 97%+ of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere, while atmospheric CO2 accounts for ~5%-8%. So you are wrong Phage.


originally posted by: Phage
You mean the part that says "could be?" They just don't know because they only looked at three years of data.

"What we can't really do at this stage is to extrapolate from this three-year period to any longer period - we can't even say that [what we've seen] has happened on previous solar cycles," said principal researcher Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London.


Could be Phage, not that "it is not" as you claimed...


originally posted by: Phage
"If you could extrapolate... the climate models have been over-estimating the Sun's effect on temperature [rise]."

www.bbc.com...


And it has been posted that "activist scientists" have been rigging the temperature data, erasing records, and lying through their teeth to instill fear in governments to push for the "left-wing environmental agenda." Not because we really need to "save the Earth", but because there are a bunch of environlunatics out there whom think they know what's best for the world. When in reality not even you are a real environmentalist. Environmentalists would LOVE that there is an increase in atmospheric CO2 because it means a GREENER Earth, more trees, more harvests/more food, and more potable water for human beings and animals, as well as stronger plant life on Earth. But you love "control," and that's the real reason why you are an activist. You can't even admit when you are shown to be wrong. That's how much of a control freak you are.





edit on 5-10-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Over the last 35 years, the Sun has been getting weaker. That's what Nasa says.
...



originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...
Basically, we're on our way to a solar minimum. But the ice caps are melting.
...


And what has been found is...


10 June 2014, 10:43 pm EDT By James Maynard Tech Times

Melting of a major glacier system in western Antarctica may be caused by underwater volcanoes, and not by global climate change, according to new research.

Thwaites Glacier, a massive outlet for ice that empties into Pine Island Bay, is flowing at a rate of one-and-a-quarter miles per year. The bay opens up into the Amundsen Sea.

The Thwaites Glacier has been the subject of scrutiny by climatologists in the last few years, as new information about the severity of the melting becomes available. Traditional models had assumed heating from subterranean sources was fairly even around the region. New data provides details about areas where little was previously known.

University of Texas researchers studied how water moves underground in the region. They found liquid water was present in a greater number of sources than previously believed, and it is warmer than estimated in previous studies.

"It's the most complex thermal environment you might imagine. And then you plop the most critical, dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It's virtually impossible," Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at the University of Texas, said.
...


Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet



originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Are we all gonna die!!?!? No. But higher temperatures will mean less rainfall world wide, which will dramatically reduce agricultural production. People are gonna starve. And that is going to suck for them.

In the first world, grocery prices will go up. In the third world, well..... it won't be pretty.


WRONG... Warming periods are called "OPTIMUMS" because LIFE THRIVES in warmer climates.

Not to mention the fact that atmospheric CO2 sequestration will be what will really devastate global food supplies.
Atmospheric CO2 is at ~400ppm and it has been proven that most plant life benefit with atmospheric CO2 levels between 1,200ppm-1,500ppm. In fact most people whom have greenhouses increase the levels of atmospheric CO2. The optimum level is 1,200ppm -1,500ppm for most plant life.



...
Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200-1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25-60%. Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more ...

progressive-growth.com...

At these levels plant life grows stronger, provides more harvests/more food, and plants/trees make better use of water. This means there is more potable water for humans and animals with higher levels of atmospheric CO2.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

With good references I have been sharing this situation on volcano's melting the glaciers you posted and it gets poo poohed with no supporting data by a couple of people.
www.techtimes.com...


Throw in this magnetic field is going thru some major changes. Major.


We are electromagnetic too, living as creature in an electromagnetic field. This is affecting more than just our compass directions.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod



How do you explain the increase of CO2 we are observing?


I would think the release of methane from the oceans would account for a chunk of that. Volcanoes would account for some, forest fires, some more.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chance321
a reply to: jrod



How do you explain the increase of CO2 we are observing?


I would think the release of methane from the oceans would account for a chunk of that. Volcanoes would account for some, forest fires, some more.


Methane won't contribute to CO or CO2 unless it is burned. It will be mostly CO2 if the temperature of the burn is high. Methane is a greenhouse gas that will help raise the temp but not enough to possible save us if that Sun grows cold.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Water Vapor is the greenhouse gas that accounts for 97%+ of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere, while atmospheric CO2 accounts for ~5%-8%. So you are wrong Phage.
I said that rising CO2 level are the best candidate for the warming trend. H20 content is dependent upon temperature. CO2 content is not.

Rising CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures.
edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It's called the Milanovitch cycle, where the orbit changes from circular to elliptical and the tilt of the axis will reverse every so many thousand years. Think of it like seasons but on a longer cycle.

www.universetoday.com...
edit on 5-10-2019 by ambassado12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ambassado12

Funny you should mention that. I just made a post about it.

The Milankovitch cycles affect climate gradually, over thousands of years. And they say that things should be cooling slowly, not warming rapidly.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join