It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Faked "Fossil Fuel" Fear Factor

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by Tsurugi

I've been getting the impression from western science outlets that the TSI was increasing!

One of the interesting concepts is we have been looking at the wrong things. Gerard Roe had a 2006 paper In defense of Milankovitch, Geophysical Research Letters LINK

Roe realized a trivial mistake that had previously been done and is being done by many people today. The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives; they say that something is "warm" even though they mean that it's "getting warmer" If you suddenly get more sunshine you don't immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing (ice is melting)

This also applies to sunshine today. The IPCC says the amount of change in the sunshine is too little to change the temperature. What they forget is the amount is ACCUMULATIVE over every minute every day and every year. If the burner on a stove is keeping the water at 50C and you turn it up a little OVER TIME the temperature will increase. It does not increase instantaneously.
Back to your comment, it depends.

PAPER: Global increase in UV irradiance during the past 30 years (1979–2008) estimated from satellite data

Zonal average ultraviolet irradiance (flux ultraviolet, FUV) reaching the Earth's surface has significantly increased since 1979... Zonal average ultraviolet irradiance (flux ultraviolet, FUV) reaching the Earth's surface has significantly increased since 1979....

PAPER: Global dimming and brightening: A review

There is increasing evidence that the amount of solar radiation incident at the Earth's surface is not stable over the years but undergoes significant decadal variations. Here I review the evidence for these changes, their magnitude, their possible causes, their representation in climate models, and their potential implications for climate change. The various studies analyzing long-term records of surface radiation measurements suggest a widespread decrease in surface solar radiation between the 1950s and 1980s (“global dimming”), with a partial recovery more recently at many locations (“brightening”). There are also some indications for an “early brightening” in the first part of the 20th century. These variations are in line with independent long-term observations of sunshine duration, diurnal temperature range, pan evaporation, and, more recently, satellite-derived estimates, which add credibility to the existence of these changes and their larger-scale significance....

GRAPH C14 as a proxy for cosmic rays is modulated by solar magnetic temperature iceberg debris. From Die kalte Sonne - Hochschule Mannheim

Sunspots were increasing up to cycle 23. For a comparison of cycle 21 to 24:

For the last 17 years or so the earth's temperature has not increased. Cycle 23 started in May 1996. HMMMmm 17 plus 1996 is 2013...

The sunspots have decreased despite the fact the sun is supposed to be at Solar MAXIMUM:

The 10.7cm radio flux is also in a slump:

As is The Ap geomagnetic index:

If you have followed what has been happening the global temperatures have been constantly adjusted to "Prove" the UN's scare tactics are "Real" Changes in temperature graphs over time: GISS reinterprets decade old temp data, Graphs from 1980, 1987 and 2007

Now 'solar physicists' are doing the same to the older data on the sun. Su nspot Number reconstruction by Leif Svalgaard

Dr Leif Svalgaard, is a researcher at Stanford University home of Paul R. Ehrlich co-author with Obama's Science czar of a 1977 book that advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population, Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens...

posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:16 AM

  • Titan is pre-biotic(has organics, but no organisms...that we know of)

  • It is far more likely Titan is not pre-biotic.

    All your scaffolding is based on the simple yet arbitrary assumption it is.

    posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 10:45 AM

    reply to post by theantediluvian

    You're using the term "hydrocarbons" quite loosely: on Titan for instance, we're talking about lakes of methane and clouds of methane and ethane (C2H6). This is a far cry from crude oil which contains various mixtures of hydrocarbons along with a lot of other things

    Well it is obvious you are not a scientist much less a chemist because you obviously do not understand what a hydrocarbon is.

    From Purdue University who has a very good chemistry department: Compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen are known as hydrocarbons.

    Methane is CH4 and hydrocarbons go from Methane to plastics like Polyethylene

    Signed, A CHEMIST

    I stand by my statement regarding the purposefully misleading use of the term to imply that the variety and complexity of hydrocarbons on Titan closely resemble those found in fossil fuel sources on Earth. At no point did I claim to be a chemist nor did I make any statement that could be construed tomean that I was disputing the fact that methane and ethane are in fact hydrocarbons. If you'd like, I could post some links to helpful resources on reading for comprehension?
    edit on 30-10-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

    posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 12:25 PM
    reply to post by Tsurugi

    I in no way implied that methane and ethane are not hydrocarbons. What I did state was that you were purposefully using the term "hydrocarbon" in such a way that the casual reader could come to the false conclusion that the variety, complexity (carbon:hydrogen ratio) and composition (number and variety of compounds) of hydrocarbon sources found on Titan closely resemble those found in fossil fuel sources on Earth.

    Natural gas is of course primarily composed of methane. Methane is a hydrocarbon. Methane is found in abundance on Titan. Methane is known to be formed by abiotic processes.These are statements of fact and I do not dispute any of them. Methane is also found in abundance on Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus--what comparisons should we draw there?

    This means some or all of Earth's hydrocarbons may be abiotic
    Which means hydrocarbon fuels are not necessarily comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards
    Which means hydrocarbons are not "fossil" fuels
    Which means they are not necessarily non-renewable
    This has been known, or at least indicated, since the 1980s
    ...and yet everyone in the media and in academia have persisted in referring to Terran hydrocarbons as "fossil fuels"

    In your reply, you said that nobody was talking about coal and this is despite coal being the second largest source of energy derived from all fossil fuels and the most common fuel for generating electricity. Examine your own statements and tell me how you can exclude coal, please. What about petroleum? Are there lakes of crude on Titan? Natural gas is only one of the three substances commonly referred to as fossil fuels. Lastly, biogenic sources of methane are by there very nature renewable and I don't believe there is any argument against that, it's being harvested from farms and over the tops of landfills as we speak. It's the thermogenic and abiogenic sources that are considered exhaustible.

    To recap:

    1. Only 1 of 3 "fossil fuels" are found on Titan or are known to exist anywhere outside of the Earth and it happens to be one that is conveniently composed of primarily a single compound.
    2. Hydrocarbon is not synonymous with "fossil fuel" or oil or petroleum or coal for that matter.
    3. Methane from methanogens is in fact a renewable source.
    4. You've made no attempt to compare the geochemistry of Titan and Earth.

    posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 12:32 PM
    Titan's hydrocarbons are pro-biotic ????

    posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 02:01 PM

    edit on 1010 30 1313 by theclarificator55555 because: (no reason given)

    posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:33 AM

    It is far more likely Titan is not pre-biotic.

    I don't know if I would say far more likely. But I do think this is a possibility, though I have no idea how likely or unlikely it is.
    Nevertheless, the way the hydrocarbons appear to be forming on Titan seems to preclude the accepted method of biological hydrocarbon formation on Earth, which requires bio-sediments to first build up and then be subducted, where they are subjected to heat and pressure that breaks them down into various forms of hydrocarbons. On Titan, the process seems to be taking place on the surface, in the extreme cold.

    But if scientists who disagree with abiotic theory want to claim Titan has alien life, I would be totally cool with that.

    All your scaffolding is based on the simple yet arbitrary assumption it is.

    As I said, this is a "solution" I would be completely happy with. And while I can't say how "arbitrary" the presumption of Titan's pre-biotic state is, I do not rule out the possibility that Titan may harbor alien life, as you can see in the line you quoted from my OP:

  • Titan is pre-biotic(has organics, but no organisms...that we know of)

  • posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 12:10 AM

    Yes! But they are still on the surface, which means their carbon is not "trapped", it is still in cycle.

    I have to point out a big FAIL for chemistry.

    Carbon atoms (element C, solid at STP) may be present in hydrocarbons, but that does not mean they can therefore contribute to climate change/global warming/whatever the hell they call it now, or indeed the carbon cycle (which incidentally requires the carbon to be in CO2 form in gaseous state in the atmosphere to meet the MMGW definition). Carbon never has, can or will contribute to MMGW.

    It's like saying oxygen contributes to MMGW, but you'll never hear this mentioned despite the fact there are two atoms of oxygen in every molecule of CO2 (a colorless, odorless gas at STP), vs. the one of carbon.

    This is why "they" shortened any references to CO2 in the MMGW context to "carbon", to hide the small detail of two oxygen atoms being involved.

    I point this out because regardless of where the carbon is (100 miles underground, on the surface, or in the air), unless it is in that evil form CO2 AND in the atmosphere in gaseous form, then according to MMGW doctrine, its impact on the climate is nil.

    If we were to truly discuss the carbon cycle, then we would have to reference Methane and Carbon Monoxide as well, but I haven't seen these referenced when discussing the carbon cycle (the mantra being that carbon dioxide is part of the carbon cycle, CO2 causes MMGW and, by inference, carbon is bad because CO2 is bad, etc...

    I know that the addition or removal of any of electrons, protons or neutrons in an atom changes (or can change) significantly its properties. The point of this post is not to discuss the literal chemistry, but the fact that basic science is abused to the extreme for the purposes of the perpetuation of MMGW dogma.

    Great thread, OP.
    edit on 20-12-2013 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)

    edit on 20-12-2013 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)

    top topics

    << 1   >>

    log in