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.
I stated that one cant simplify science into soundbites, and that saying 'its been warm before' is not a realistic refutation of climate science.
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
\ happened exactly like he said , bam proof.
This has never happened with APG, LITERALLY everything that happens they claim proves it. Yet at no time has a criteria for establishing proof been set.
This is alarming in science as every theory must have a set standard of criteria that if not met make the theory invalid. With APG, the only thing they promise is to see with clear perception what "will" happen in a long off future that never comes. As evidence of this, I grew up in the 80s, in the 90s they said that we would see the signs right now and all would see it to be true. Well where are the signs? I don't see them!
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by mbkennel
Where does the heat that sustains us all come from? From within? Does the earth warm us from its internal heat, with our atmospheric blanket keeping us warm? NO, if that were the case we wouldn't have seasons. We have seasons because our planet rotates on a 23 degree axis. This fact alone should have let you know how much the sun effects our climate.
Now I have just established a known fact that the sun controls climate at a grand scale that only involves earths orbit around it correct?
I will assume you agree and move on.
Ergo we know the earths climate is controlled primarily by the sun. I in my first paragraph established another known fact, the suns output is not steady, it changes at least in a 11 year cycle.
Would you agree with these facts?
Once again I will assume so and move along.
So is it that hard of a stretch to make the connection for you that the sun has ups and downs and that as the primary controller of our climate, has the most effect above anyother factor on our climate?
Now having established the fact that the most likely source of any supposed "global warming" is easily identifiable and outside our ability to effect, what's the big deal besides greenies/ econazis trying to tax us for their own gain?
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by mbkennel
So ya you quoted me, but you overlook the importance of my statement. In science every single theory has to have an exact set of criteria that either prove or disprove said theory.
There are not now, nor have there ever been a set criteria that PROVES APG. This was done intentionally, so as to make it impossible to disprove. You can't disprove somthing that doesn't happen, as in you can't disprove their criteria as none are set. So you can't disprove the theory, as there really is no theory to disprove in the first place.
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
It's time to put this fallacy to rest once and for all.
Yes, CO2 is rising and yes, fossil carbon in the atmosphere is rising and yes oxygen is dropping but that is only relevant if rising global temperatures (of which there hasn't been a new record high since 1997) are caused by rising CO2. The link below shows quite clearly that ice core samples reveal that CO2 lags behind air temperatures. Since the cause always has to precede the effect, CO2 can NOT possibly be causing rising air temperatures.
If the two are connected at all, then rising air temperatures are causing rising CO2 levels and the oceans are the mechanism whereby this happens. Every planet in our solar system is getting warmer (says NASA). Are we to assume that humans are causing those planets to heat up too?
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Eurisko2012
And what is driving these natural cycles?
I will end up asking this 10 more times and a skeptic won't answer.
edit on 30-7-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mbkennel
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by nixie_nox
We don't respond as the question is in and of itself ..hhmmm how do you say retarded but in a nice way?
Nature drives the natural cycle, that's the reason it is the root word of natural.
Also I would think that the giant( 1 million times the mass of earth) nuclear explosion you see overhead would have a lot to do with it. Or do you think it just gives us light?
Repeat. over and over. Scientists have not forgotten about the Sun. Obviously if it weren't there climate would be really cold, being in thermal equilibrium with microwave background radiation at 3K instead of 310K.
www.skepticalscience.com...
www.skepticalscience.com...
Examining the Sun as a driver of climate change was a good question in 1960's and 1970's---the pros thought of all of that, plus many more things, and set out to measure them. At some point with a large amount of effort they got an answer. The answer was not a few people wanted to hear because it conflicts with their political desires, but mother Nature doesn't care about politics.
By the way, look at the scale on the Y axis of the total solar irradiance since 1980. The size of the solar cycle is about 1.5 parts in 1366. There is a slight downtrend, and from 2005 through about 2008 (where the graph ends) an extended low point. Climate has been getting hotter during that time. There is little correlation of observed climate with solar cycles recently.
The second page gives reference to at least two studie (Foster/Rahmstorf,Lean/Rind) which quantitatively estimate effect of Sun on recent climate. Their conclusions are that the effect is negligible to slightly cooling. Observations show a significant warming which is consistent with the anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases and lowered aerosol pollution.
edit on 30-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)edit on 30-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by winnar
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Eurisko2012
And what is driving these natural cycles?
I will end up asking this 10 more times and a skeptic won't answer.
edit on 30-7-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
We wont answer because its a stupid question.
What was driving these natural cycles before mans industrialization and before we even showed up?
Originally posted by winnar
Originally posted by mbkennel
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by nixie_nox
We don't respond as the question is in and of itself ..hhmmm how do you say retarded but in a nice way?
Nature drives the natural cycle, that's the reason it is the root word of natural.
Also I would think that the giant( 1 million times the mass of earth) nuclear explosion you see overhead would have a lot to do with it. Or do you think it just gives us light?
Repeat. over and over. Scientists have not forgotten about the Sun. Obviously if it weren't there climate would be really cold, being in thermal equilibrium with microwave background radiation at 3K instead of 310K.
www.skepticalscience.com...
www.skepticalscience.com...
Examining the Sun as a driver of climate change was a good question in 1960's and 1970's---the pros thought of all of that, plus many more things, and set out to measure them. At some point with a large amount of effort they got an answer. The answer was not a few people wanted to hear because it conflicts with their political desires, but mother Nature doesn't care about politics.
By the way, look at the scale on the Y axis of the total solar irradiance since 1980. The size of the solar cycle is about 1.5 parts in 1366. There is a slight downtrend, and from 2005 through about 2008 (where the graph ends) an extended low point. Climate has been getting hotter during that time. There is little correlation of observed climate with solar cycles recently.
The second page gives reference to at least two studie (Foster/Rahmstorf,Lean/Rind) which quantitatively estimate effect of Sun on recent climate. Their conclusions are that the effect is negligible to slightly cooling. Observations show a significant warming which is consistent with the anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases and lowered aerosol pollution.
edit on 30-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)edit on 30-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
Ya they havent forgotten about the sun and I am sure they know literally every aspect of the sun and how it affects earth.
But then?
news.softpedia.com...
Why wasnt this known until recently and what else is going on that we dont know about?
Do you smell unicorn piss? What drove the natural cycles 300000 years ago went temperature shot up and then back down? What is driving this cycle roughly every 120k years? Dont think I didnt notice you conveniently separate man from nature earlier either.
Originally posted by mbkennel
WTF does that have to do with climate? It is pretty interesting and probably some kind of weak force interaction with solar neutrinos. Effect on climate? As much as an effect on my beer. None.
Estimate quantitatively the magnitude of this effect in radioactive decay and the change in geothermal heating, compared to change in solar forcing from greenhouse effect.
Originally posted by Studenofhistory
It's time to put this fallacy to rest once and for all.
Yes, CO2 is rising and yes, fossil carbon in the atmosphere is rising and yes oxygen is dropping but that is only relevant if rising global temperatures (of which there hasn't been a new record high since 1997) are caused by rising CO2. The link below shows quite clearly that ice core samples reveal that CO2 lags behind air temperatures. Since the cause always has to precede the effect, CO2 can NOT possibly be causing rising air temperatures. If the two are connected at all, then rising air temperatures are causing rising CO2 levels and the oceans are the mechanism whereby this happens. Every planet in our solar system is getting warmer (says NASA). Are we to assume that humans are causing those planets to heat up too?
CO2 lags air temperature changes
Originally posted by winnar
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Eurisko2012
And what is driving these natural cycles?
I will end up asking this 10 more times and a skeptic won't answer.
edit on 30-7-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
We wont answer because its a stupid question. What was driving these natural cycles before mans industrialization and before we even showed up?
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Yes, global warming to prevent an impending (read inevitable) ice age would seem to be a good thing, would it not?
I'm still kind of disappointed that I don't have a banana tree growing in my backyard in Pennsylvania yet. I wouldn't mind the shorter trip to the beach when ocean levels rise.