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: 7
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: 1point92AU


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.


At least you admit to being weak minded and for that I commend you. Yes, I understand you are being facetious.

You clearly are unaware of the manipulated data that has been used to push the false narrative. You clearly are unaware of the outright fabricated data (meaning it was never recorded and someone made it up) used to push the false narrative.

I've read all of the mainstream BS pumped into the public realm for the past decade. If you point to any of those "facts" then you lose credibility for they have long been debunked.

The premise of the thread is very simple. Very straight forward. And 100% unarguable.

The Sun is and will always be the driver for the Earth's climate. Always. Man cannot impact the global climate to the scale so many "low information" people like to claim.

Let me break it down to even simpler means. By your (and a few others) argument you seem to think both the Sun AND Man are what drives the global climate on Earth, right?

Now apply some simple deductive reasoning techniques to that argument.

Remove Man from the equation and leave the Sun in. Do we still have a global climate?

Now remove the Sun from the equation and leave Man in. Do we still have a global climate?

The idiot left is saying within the next few decades we will not have a habitable planet due to "man made climate change". Do you really not know how incredibly stupid a person sounds believing this?

The Earth sustained a world wide extinction level event that killed 75% of all plant and animal life and placed more chemicals into the atmosphere in knownhistory and yet....

Here....we....are.

But you expect me to believe Man is going to destroy this planet in the next few decades?

ROTFLOL !!!




posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU




The Sun is and will always be the driver for the Earth's climate.



The Sun determines how much heat the planet receives. The atmosphere determines how much leaves.

If the Sun gets warmer the planet will warm. If less heat leaves the planet will warm.

Is the Sun getting warmer?

edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Show me what ya got on the bogus "CO2 levels are the cause" and I'll steam roll it with counter data once again proving you don't know how to use your Google PHD very well.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Phage

Show me what ya got on the bogus "CO2 levels are the cause" and I'll steam roll it with counter data once again proving you don't know how to use your Google PHD very well.


Why are you misquoting me?



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: thedigirati

So, in other words..lets keep wrecking the place..because it will "heal itself"




First show me the wreckage.

then we will talk.

You DO remember the whole Ozone "scare" right?

Show me how we destroyed the Ozone layer

even though we didn't destroy the Ozone layer

what is that saying again

"fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"

"try to fool me a third time I will laugh at you"

The Ozone layer was an existential threat at the time too remember? it was supposed to be all gone by now.

it was going to kill us all.


Um, you do realise that steps were taken to curb the ozone depletion..surely you are old enough to remember..I do. Did it bounce back better than expected..it would appear so. If no actoin was taken at the time, would it have repaired itself..not likely.

And I'm not sure what "damage" you're asking me to show..it's pretty apparent we are damaging the rivers, lakes, oceans, air..etc. Are you trying to deny the damage to those things?



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: contextual
a reply to: infolurker

Oh please. science is a politicized bastardization of what it once was.

You're not talking about actual science

You're talking about new science.
New science is fake news.

The fact that your side BEGAN the global warming debate
by stating that "the debate is over" tells you all you need to know.
If there were ever ANY televised debates your side made sure to cover them up because I never saw any and I'm 43.
John Stossel tried to spark debate but everyone in your side ran screaming.

The fact that your side changed from global warming to climate change is another obvious red flag that you are completely full of it.

But keep making excuses about those things.

The country is waking up to your side's nonsense.

And nobody believes big oil is the greatest corporate threat to this country anymore.

Google and Facebook and Amazon have those distinctions.
And thank god people are starting to see that too.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JonathanNicholas


The fact that your side changed from global warming to climate change is another obvious red flag that you are completely full of it.

Never happened.

Both are being used and both were used in the past and each describes a different, though related phenomenon.

Global warming means the average global temperature is increasing. Climate change is the result.

You're not demonstrating much knowledge about the subject, just reporting erroneous claims.



edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chance321

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.


Underwater volcanoes and fissures/vents, which are mostly not monitored, release massive amounts of CO2 into the air, more so when the pressure has increased, at least in the northern hemisphere, in the molten iron river under the Earth's surface.

Earth is undergoing many changes. The amount of earthquakes has also been increasing.


The 2010–2014.3 global earthquake rate increase
Tom Parsons 1 and Eric L. Geist 1

1 U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA
...
1. Introduction

Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Given these high rates, along with suggestions that damaging earthquakes may be causatively linked at global distance [e.g., Gomberg and Bodin, 1994; Pollitz et al., 1998; Tzanis and Makropoulos, 2002; Bufe and Perkins, 2005; Gonzalez-Huizar et al., 2012; Pollitz et al., 2012, 2014], we investigate whether there is a significant departure from a random process underlying these rate changes. Recent studies have demonstrated that M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes (and also tsunamis) that occurred since 1900 follow a Poisson process [e.g., Michael, 2011; Geist and Parsons, 2011; Daub et al., 2012; Shearer and Stark, 2012; Parsons and Geist, 2012; Ben-Naim et al., 2013]. Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media [e.g., www.nbcnews.com...]. We extend our analysis to M ≥ 5.0 levels, as many of these lower magnitude events convey significant hazard, and global catalogs have not generally been tested down to these thresholds.

2. Methods and Data

We work with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) catalog of M≥ 5.0 global earthquakes for the period between 1979 and 2014.3 with a primary focus on the recent interval between 2010 and 2014.3 that shows the highest earthquake rates (Table 1 and Figure 1). A variety of tests suggest that the catalog is complete down to magnitudes between M=4.6 and M=5.2, depending on the method used to assess it (see supporting information). We examine a range of lower magnitude thresholds above M =5.0 to account for this uncertainty.
...

profile.usgs.gov...

The two USGS seismologists who posted their findings are Tom Parsons and Eric L. Geist.



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



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

Phage just Called , Baaaaaaaa...



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Never happened.


It did happen. The left now refer to it as "climate change" because the changes are chaotic to both extremes. More so after the hiatus in which temperatures stopped increasing for several years. Of course, except for the "rigged/made up data" which you like to link to a lot despite the fact that real scientists have pointed out how your activists passing as scientists have had to lie, erase raw temperature data, rig temperature data from several countries including China and Russia, both of which have reported this rigging of their temp data.


originally posted by: Phage
You're not demonstrating much knowledge about the subject, just reporting erroneous claims.


You should look in a mirror when making that statement.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The amount of earthquakes has also been increasing.
No it hasn't. Your source:

A strong increase in the number of global earthquakes is noted since 2010 that appears to have accelerated during the first quarter of 2014. However, there is no evidence that this increase represents a departure from temporally independent earthquake occurrence, as many of these earthquakes are local aftershocks of prior events.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
You see, they used a specific set of data because they were looking for something specific, the "clustering" of earthquakes. They did not look for, nor did they find, an overall increase in earthquake frequency and the data does not show any such increase.



It did happen.
No it didn't. Both terms are used and have been for decades. They describe two different, but related phenomena.

edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: 1point92AU

I'm not sure what you are seeing but I've asked friends from Florida and they dont see any of that nonsense.
Your side has been screaming about oceans rising for literally DECADES.
The oceans have been steadily rising for a very long time.
Before the industrial revolution.

Maybe you are experiencing beach erosion.

I have heard nothing about ocean water rising in Florida .

And your messiah Barack Obama just bought up beach front property.

Pretty insane investment if his house is going to be under water in 20 years.

You will laugh and scoff and eye roll over a Forbes article I'm sure.
You do that to any dissenting points of view.

Ocean levels aren't suddenly rising any faster then they have always have been-

www.forbes.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JonathanNicholas


Maybe you are experiencing beach erosion.
When the water overtops a seawall it is not beach erosion. It is rising sea level.


Ocean levels aren't suddenly rising any faster then they have always have been-
Depends on what you mean by suddenly, I guess.
www.carbonbrief.org...



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Earth is undergoing many changes. The amount of earthquakes has also been increasing.
No it hasn't.

A strong increase in the number of global earthquakes is noted since 2010 that appears to have accelerated during the first quarter of 2014. However, there is no evidence that this increase represents a departure from temporally independent earthquake occurrence, as many of these earthquakes are local aftershocks of prior events.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
You see, they used a specific set of data because they were looking for something specific, the "clustering" of earthquakes. They did not look for, nor did they find, an overall increase in earthquake frequency.


It did happen.
No it didn't. Both terms are used and have been for decades. They describe two different, but related phenomena.



I would have to say there is a similar inference on you LIA theory then. Very specific data set.

Is there anything you can point to that accounts for man made global warming? And something that is directly in conflict with nature for the past few million or billion years?

I am sure you wont argue that the earth has had higher and lower temps in its lifetime. Why do you believe humans, in the past 100+ years have some major impact?

You are a smart guy. I am sure you know we take up very little of this planet. We hear about overpopulation and whatever BS. Do you believe we inhabit too.much of the planet?

Just want to know where you are coming from. I have travelled a little bit. I can say I dont think humans have made even a tiny amount of difference in our world or climate. The earth has been around for many extinctions and will be around for many more.

Why do we, as humans, seem to think we are special and the earth will succumb to our will? It is the ultimate vanity. Regardless of belief in religion or science, we are and always have been doomed to the will of the Earth.

Is the climate change BS just a way of us going out with a stupidity bang? If we truly have made such a impact on the climate of a entire planet in 100 years, do you honestly think we can reverse it...even in another 100 years?

We have been told all is lost and irreversible. Do we suddenly now have some odd tech that can reverse our impact?

The green revolution is solely about making money on whatever other tech besides oil we can.

Anywho....enjoy!



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
No it hasn't.


Yes it has...


...
Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014 (Table 1 and Figure 1)
...
Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media
...


They did find an increase in the amount of earthquakes. They just aren't certain whether it is a normal process or something else is happening causing that increase.


...


Temporal global distribution of M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes since 1979. The average rate over this period is 10.1 yr−1. In Figure 1a a clear rate increase is evident after ~1992, with the average increasing to 12.5 yr−1. Since 2010 the rate has increased to 16.7 yr−1.
...

4 Conclusions

A strong increase in the number of global earthquakes is noted since 2010 that appears to have accelerated during the first quarter of 2014. However, there is no evidence that this increase represents a departure from temporally independent earthquake occurrence, as many of these earthquakes are local aftershocks of prior events. While some studies have concluded that specific large earthquakes have had a significant impact on global M ≥ 5.0 seismicity since 2010, we cannot find a strong signal associated with global M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes that rises above the random fluctuations that are observed between regular 48 h periods; the largest rate increases we see are not associated with global main shocks (Figure 2). This is quantified here at the M ≥ 5.6 level because a temporally independent Poisson process governing the distribution of these earthquakes cannot be ruled out at 95% confidence, even with a wide range of local declustering and binning parameters. If M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes have significant global influence on other moderate to large events (M ≥ 5.6), then the catalog should be overdispersed well outside local aftershock zones. We do note apparent dependent clustering below this magnitude threshold that cannot be explained by local aftershocks or swarms.

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

In the above graph you can clearly see that from 1979-1992 there weren't as many earthquakes as after 1992, and after wards as well in 2010, and then 2014. They just don't know if it is "a departure from temporally independent earthquake occurrence."



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I would have to say there is a similar inference on you LIA theory then. Very specific data set.
Yes. They were studying the causes of the LIA and how it may have been affected by reduced solar activity.



Is there anything you can point to that accounts for man made global warming? And something that is directly in conflict with nature for the past few million or billion years?
It's partly a process of elimination. Causes of many of past changes can be determined (orbital/axial changes, extreme volcanic activity, changes in solar output). Those things are not happening at the present. The physics of radiative forcing indicate that rising CO2 concentrations will lead to warming.


 



Why do you believe humans, in the past 100+ years have some major impact?
Stated above. Why do you think that they have not?

Something I quoted in another thread regarding vegetation:


This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers such as climate change. Land-use change exhibits regional dominance, including tropical deforestation and agricultural expansion, temperate reforestation or afforestation, cropland intensification and urbanization.


The mapped land changes and the driver attributions reflect a human-dominated Earth system. The dataset we developed may be used to improve the modelling of land-use changes, biogeochemical cycles and vegetation–climate interactions to advance our understanding of global environmental change.


Direct human impact predominates. On a global scale.

www.nature.com...
 


Why do we, as humans, seem to think we are special and the earth will succumb to our will?
The Earth won't. Our environment does. It's what we do.

 


We have been told all is lost and irreversible. Do we suddenly now have some odd tech that can reverse our impact?
No. But we have, and have had the ability to slow the rate of change. To gain time to adapt and further develop and innovate.


edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You are To Smart for your Own Self Friend.. I can Relate to you Personally. My Condolences......

edit on 5-10-2019 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


They did find an increase in the amount of earthquakes.


Between 2010 and 2014. Read the title of the paper.

The paper is about "clustering." Has that four year "trend" continued?


However, there is no evidence that this increase represents a departure from temporally independent earthquake occurrence, as many of these earthquakes are local aftershocks of prior events.

edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So you are saying we have not had extreme radiative forces, volcanic activity or solar influence in the last whatever relative existence of man?

As far a human impact...no...I dont believe we have had much on earth. We may be the most advanced species this planet has had, but to believe we have done anything to impact the earth is vain.

Earth has been through many times worse than humans multiple times and shrugged it off. It has been MUCH hotter and MUCH colder than humans could possibly live through....all without human influence.

The issue is we are solely going by the science of man...vanity.

We have nothing but man made science to discern our belief from. Man being a literal blip on earth's radar.

Science has a LONG way to go to convince anyone we are killing earth....same with religion...which is even more conceit driven than science.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




So you are saying we have not had extreme radiative forces, volcanic activity or solar influence in the last whatever relative existence of man?

In the past 150 years, yes. That is what I am saying.


Earth has been through many times worse than humans multiple times and shrugged it off.
Indeed. Asteroids and stuff. But I'm not sure you can say it was "shrugged off."



It has been MUCH hotter and MUCH colder than humans could possibly live through....all without human influence.
And that means that human influence can have no effect? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Forest fires can be started by lightning. Does that mean humans can't do it?


Man being a literal blip on earth's radar.
But we are the only blip we've got.

edit on 10/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join