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.

 

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   

bbracken677
Secondly: During the last 200 years our magnetosphere (you know, that magnetic thing that protects us from much of the solar radiation the sun tosses at us?) has weakened by 15%. I guess that hasn't played a part in the warming over the last 200 years.


Interesting idea.


Not at all...specially since there is nothing we can do about it, nor is there money to be made by taking advantage of the fact. That is a conveniently overlooked fact that is continually and constantly overlooked, at least by those with a "man can fix it" agenda.


Explain how it

a) explains change in climate. Note, hand-waving is not enough, specific physics & quantitative simulation, validated by experiment is necessary.

b) negates known effects of infrared emissivity from increased greenhouse gases,

Speaking of not knowing the science, what uncertainty on the science is there on this?



What hubris it is for man to believe that he can decide the change the climate one way or another. What hubris it is to believe that we even know all the players in the climate-change-game. What hubris it is for us to believe that we can make changes and actually be able to predict the outcome of those changes.


This is trying to shame people emotionally into not following the observable consequences of observation and scientific inquiry by calling it 'hubris'. You may say the same things about populations of fish in the ocean, that it's "hubris" that man can change them, but in fact, man certainly has. Otherwise, look out a window while you fly over a country. Man has changed the land use of a large fraction of many arable areas. Is that "hubris" to say that humans can influence land use that way? No, it's an actual fact. Look out the window---man has changed a large fraction of nature.

Numbers matter.



Just a few years ago we thought that many of the aerosols we were releasing into the atmosphere were of the greenhouse variety. Not so fast, kemo-sabe, seems we misclassified a bunch of them and they are actually blocking or reflecting sunlight. If we do not even know who the players are, how can we possibly think we can manipulate the game?


Why do you think we don't know what the players are, people have been working on this with experiments for 50 years.

edit on 27-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   

generik
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


ANYONE WHO TRIES TO CHANGE (or is knowingly involved in it) what could very likely be a NATURAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE,


The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 (and rapidly increasing) is demonstrably NOT natural.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   

jdub297

I've been asking for quite some time, and have yet to get an honest answer, just what makes AGW advocates think THIS is the optimum Earth temperature? Hubris; the idea ology that man is all important and all powerful. None of the AGW faithful I've asked can point out exactly what climate is the "Normal" or "optimum" one for Earth.


Sure, it's the one that has supported the development of civilization over the last 10,000 years. All sorts of infrastructure, ecology and agriculture is dependent on current climate norms.

Archeological evidence has shown that small localized climate shifts have contributed to the extinction of complex civilizations. Doing an experiment on the global civilization to a much larger extent is very risky.

I'm a AGW "advocate" in the same way that a physician is "pro-cancer". I think the prospect and notion is awful and atrocious, but I accept scientific fact and reasoning despite the unpleasant political and social consequences and I am dismayed at those who don't, because their attitudes may contribute to the extinction of technological civilization, which I happen to enjoy very much.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

jacktorrance
reply to post by jdub297
 


If there was proof, would it matter? And would any amount of proof ever be enough for people to stop arguing about why it's happening and instead focus on what we can or cannot do to fix it?

I, of course cannot say conclusively why climate change is happening, but I think most can agree that it is indeed occurring. Whether simply a cycle that we're rotating back through, or whether man-made, why does it matter?


Because the policy responses depend on the mechanism.


And why do some people seemingly get so offended by the thought that our behavior can affect our environment?


Because the appropriate policy responses require people to be substantially less selfish and they don't want to be, and they are inclined to believe that people are enemies instead of abstract, and invisible physics. In the end, physics always always always always always wins.


I can understand if someone simply says "I don't believe that we are the cause.",


Regardless of the observational and physical evidence?



edit on 28-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   

mbkennel

bbracken677
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 





I have not once said we need to revert to old ways, especially hunter-gatherer!



Good...cause that would result the in the deaths of billions of people.

Do you honestly believe that a slight reduction in our "standard of living" is sufficient to turn the tide? Honestly, I am curious.

Tundra thawing...releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Magnetosphere weakening... allowing more solar radiation to reach the planet's surface.

I doubt I need to go on. Meanwhile we should certainly get upset about .0000002% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (sarc)



If it were 0.00000002% then no one should not get upset. The facts are otherwise.


en.wikipedia.org...:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_Apr2013.svg

Pre-industrial concentrations are about 280 ppm, we are going easily to 500-600 ppm. This is not a trivial change in the slightest and historical physical evidence, current observations, and mechanistic knowledge of the physics of radiative transfer show that it is a significant change.


You do understand the (sarc) remark following that, correct?

However, your extrapolation of 500-600 ppm is purely speculative at best.



Geologic Global Climate Changes
Author: Nasif Nahle
Scientific Research Director-Biology Cabinet
(Additional editing of this English text by TS)

ABSTRACT

Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.




posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

mbkennel

generik
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


ANYONE WHO TRIES TO CHANGE (or is knowingly involved in it) what could very likely be a NATURAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE,


The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 (and rapidly increasing) is demonstrably NOT natural.


Actually it is. That is like saying "the temperature increasing in Texas today from a low of 40F to a high of 72F is NOT natural.

You really should do a little research regarding what is historically "natural".



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   

mbkennel

bbracken677
Secondly: During the last 200 years our magnetosphere (you know, that magnetic thing that protects us from much of the solar radiation the sun tosses at us?) has weakened by 15%. I guess that hasn't played a part in the warming over the last 200 years.


Interesting idea.


Not at all...specially since there is nothing we can do about it, nor is there money to be made by taking advantage of the fact. That is a conveniently overlooked fact that is continually and constantly overlooked, at least by those with a "man can fix it" agenda.


Explain how it

a) explains change in climate. Note, hand-waving is not enough, specific physics & quantitative simulation, validated by experiment is necessary.

b) negates known effects of infrared emissivity from increased greenhouse gases,

Speaking of not knowing the science, what uncertainty on the science is there on this?

Sincerely? You are asking me to explain how an increase in solar radiation penetrating the geomagnetic field will affect climate?
I think I am misunderstanding the question, surely. If that is what you want, I can post plenty of links to scientific studies, or you can just exercise your google finger. I would think it is self evident.




What hubris it is for man to believe that he can decide the change the climate one way or another. What hubris it is to believe that we even know all the players in the climate-change-game. What hubris it is for us to believe that we can make changes and actually be able to predict the outcome of those changes.


This is trying to shame people emotionally into not following the observable consequences of observation and scientific inquiry by calling it 'hubris'. You may say the same things about populations of fish in the ocean, that it's "hubris" that man can change them, but in fact, man certainly has. Otherwise, look out a window while you fly over a country. Man has changed the land use of a large fraction of many arable areas. Is that "hubris" to say that humans can influence land use that way? No, it's an actual fact. Look out the window---man has changed a large fraction of nature.

Numbers matter.

I was paraphrasing a recent Nobel Scientist there. My point is we do not fully understand climate, given that we cannot even forecast the weather a few days out with much accuracy and the models being used to "forecast" global warming failed to predict the last 17 years of relatively flat global temps.
No...I am not trying to shame people into not following "observable consequences etc" but rather illustrate how ridiculous the notion is that we actually believe that we can control climate in any positive manner and really understand and know what the consequences are. Hubris...It's a lot easier to run a farm than control the climate to any degree.



Just a few years ago we thought that many of the aerosols we were releasing into the atmosphere were of the greenhouse variety. Not so fast, kemo-sabe, seems we misclassified a bunch of them and they are actually blocking or reflecting sunlight. If we do not even know who the players are, how can we possibly think we can manipulate the game?


Why do you think we don't know what the players are, people have been working on this with experiments for 50 years.

edit on 27-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


We didnt understand the role of aerosols just a few years ago. We do not fully understand quantitatively nor do we incorporate into climate models the role of solar activity and or the earth's magnetic field.

Are you seriously suggesting that we really know wtf is going on with the climate and how to effect any change?



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

bbracken677

Sincerely? You are asking me to explain how an increase in solar radiation penetrating the geomagnetic field will affect climate?


Yes. Most of the energy output of the Sun is in optical frequencies, and the weak magnetic field has no direct effect on this. What is the physics of the effect on the geomagnetic field on the forcing? What is the status of the experimental evaluation, and comparison to forcing from increased greenhouse effect?

The studies I have seen show that solar forcing alone does not explain observed climate in recent century without including a strong influence from changes in greenhouse forcing, and that is known to come from human actiivty by isotopic studies.



I think I am misunderstanding the question, surely. If that is what you want, I can post plenty of links to scientific studies, or you can just exercise your google finger. I would think it is self evident.


I'm a physicist. It is not self-evident.



Just a few years ago we thought that many of the aerosols we were releasing into the atmosphere were of the greenhouse variety. Not so fast, kemo-sabe, seems we misclassified a bunch of them and they are actually blocking or reflecting sunlight.


Which means that the differential sensitivity of climate to increased greenhouse gases must hence be higher than previously estimated if estimates came from climate observations with cooling aerosols.


edit on 28-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

bbracken677

mbkennel

generik
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


ANYONE WHO TRIES TO CHANGE (or is knowingly involved in it) what could very likely be a NATURAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE,


The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 (and rapidly increasing) is demonstrably NOT natural.


Actually it is. That is like saying "the temperature increasing in Texas today from a low of 40F to a high of 72F is NOT natural.

You really should do a little research regarding what is historically "natural".


What is the physical basis of this natural increase of CO2, which is known to be stable at about 280-300 level from after the Ice Age end, until the industrial revolution and start of mining of fossil fuels? Physical basis means, "mechanism justified by empirical observation and validated physical and chemical law". Things which are natural have known explanations when investigated.

Secondly, what is the physical basis for not considering the CO2 which is known to be emitted from the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels, whose exploitation is a physical fact? In a nutshell, where does that human-emitted CO2 go in an alternate hypothesis, and why is the increase which was observed natural, and not due to this known human activity?



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Some graphs of Earth's climatic history, for information.

historyoftheuniverse.com...


Perhaps we should think about climate in two ways, the short term climate which covers tens or hundreds of years, and the long term climate which covers thousands or millions of years. It turns out we are able to make computer models of short term climate which are fairly accurate. Current predictions are that the short term global climate will continue to get warmer, due to human production of greenhouse gases. The rise is predicted to be about 4°C by 2100.
However there are indications that the long term global climate might be cooling.





news.thomasnet.com...


Daniel Sigman of Princeton University and Edward Boyle of MIT write in an article for the journal Nature (“Glacial/Interglacial Variations in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Oct. 19, 2000) that during the past 2 million years, Earth’s climate has fluctuated between glacial periods and periods of warming linked partly to variations in Earth’s orbit:

The past two million years have been characterized by large cyclic variations in climate and glaciation. During cold ‘ice age’ periods, large continental ice sheets cover much of the polar Northern Hemisphere. During intervening warm periods, or ‘interglacials,’ Northern Hemisphere glaciation wanes drastically. The ultimate pacing of these glacial cycles is statistically linked to cyclic changes in the orbital parameters of the Earth, with characteristic frequencies of roughly 100,41 and 23 kyr [thousands of years] … These orbitally driven variations in the seasonal and spatial distribution of solar radiation incident on the Earth’s surface, known as the ‘Milankovitch cycles’ after their discoverer, are thought to be the fundamental drivers of glacial/interglacial oscillations.








posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Hypothetically, even if it is ever conclusively proved "global warming" is just a myth, there's no denying we have screwed up the planet for good.

A Chernobyl with some Fukushima anyone?



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Maybe in reading your reply in the wrong tone, but you seem very hostile!!!

Yes the magnitude would be "grand" as I said!
But I look at Fukushima and the Ocean seems to be diluting the effects of the radiation!

Obviously on a "grand" scale it would have to be an idea bordering on super-genius to help save our skin, but the Planet seems to do a decent job without much of our input!!!

If the top Science Minds put their heads together I wouldn't rule out the chances!

I don't really feel that heating or cooling the Ocean is practical or helpful either!
The Planet's Temperature will always be fluctuating, we will have to adapt to this!!!

What we cannot adapt to is a poisoned atmosphere!!!

How about a few mega tonne oxygen bombs around the Planet into the atmosphere to maybe dilute some of the pullution???

As I said I'm not the brains of the operation!!!

But we do have Minds who are capable of coming up with an idea, maybe we should stop limiting them to their fields and put them together for a period of 5yrs-decade instead of using them to build warheads and nuclear facilities... at least until we have a solution!!!

Hey if they don't then everything they are doing in their respective fields is going to be pointless anyways because we'll most likely all succumb to a new type of Plague and die out if this isn't fixed!!!

This isn't doom-mongering, it's a highly likely outcome if it continues in the same vein!


Peace.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

And you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book : validation by association. Sorry to burst your bubble but Patrick Moore was seduced by money many years ago. He trawls out his Greenpeace links to justify what he says. He is paid by the very corporations who NEED to have human GW proved incorrect.

Ironically enough doesn't this raise alarm bells with you ? It should !!!! If he NEEDS to dig out his decades forgotten Greenpeace association in order to justify what he says then this is a damn good indication that what he is saying is WRONG.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   

bbracken677

mbkennel

generik
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


ANYONE WHO TRIES TO CHANGE (or is knowingly involved in it) what could very likely be a NATURAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE,


The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 (and rapidly increasing) is demonstrably NOT natural.


Actually it is. That is like saying "the temperature increasing in Texas today from a low of 40F to a high of 72F is NOT natural.

You really should do a little research regarding what is historically "natural".

Wrong. So very very wrong. Have you heard of radioactive isotopes! Guess what by comparing the ratio of isotopes of carbon in the CO2 you can determine what is natural and what comes from fossil fuels. Did you know that? The increases in CO2 are from human fossil fuel burning.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

yorkshirelad

bbracken677

mbkennel

generik
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


ANYONE WHO TRIES TO CHANGE (or is knowingly involved in it) what could very likely be a NATURAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE,


The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 (and rapidly increasing) is demonstrably NOT natural.


Actually it is. That is like saying "the temperature increasing in Texas today from a low of 40F to a high of 72F is NOT natural.

You really should do a little research regarding what is historically "natural".

Wrong. So very very wrong. Have you heard of radioactive isotopes! Guess what by comparing the ratio of isotopes of carbon in the CO2 you can determine what is natural and what comes from fossil fuels. Did you know that? The increases in CO2 are from human fossil fuel burning.


My apologies, as you worded it I interpreted Natural to be in reference to the levels of co2. I was obviously referring to levels in my reply....at least, obvious to me



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 


Not hostile at all...at least in intent.

I was not inferring that we actually make an attempt to increase or decrease the Pacific Ocean by 1 degree....I was trying to illustrate the magnitude of changing the earth's temp by a degree by using the Pacific as an example of the sheer energy involved to do it "the hard way", so to speak.

My point being that currently we neither have the knowledge nor the resources to significantly affect change and that if we tried, we could not adequately or accurately be able to actually predict the consequences. The only thing we can do is affect it less. Unless we make extremely substantial changes that will represent a drop in the bucket yielding virtually no change.

I understand the ire involved in believing that man is solely responsible for the increase in global temp over the last 200 years. Unfortunately said belief is naive since there are so many other factors involved and we do not even understand what all those factors are and how much of an affect they have had.

No one...not one person can quantitatively calculate the effect of the weakening magnetic field that protects earth. Therefore, by definition we cannot quantitatively calculate the affect that man has had on global warming over the last 200 years. Has man had an affect? I am sure we have figured into the equation but I am not convinced that we have had the affect that many would have us believe.

If anyone suggests that we know how climate works, the qualitative and quantitative contributions of each factor that contributes to climate change I will not only call them a liar but a fool as well. Any climatologist will NOT make that claim.




A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature—that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]


The fact that the current models were not able to predict with any accuracy the last 17 years or so is highly indicative that the theory is far from being complete in any way, fashion or manner.

I would also say that the last 17 years do not prove that climate change is not a fact, by any means, either.
edit on 28-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

mbkennel

bbracken677

mbkennel

generik
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


ANYONE WHO TRIES TO CHANGE (or is knowingly involved in it) what could very likely be a NATURAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE,


The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 (and rapidly increasing) is demonstrably NOT natural.


Actually it is. That is like saying "the temperature increasing in Texas today from a low of 40F to a high of 72F is NOT natural.

You really should do a little research regarding what is historically "natural".


What is the physical basis of this natural increase of CO2, which is known to be stable at about 280-300 level from after the Ice Age end, until the industrial revolution and start of mining of fossil fuels? Physical basis means, "mechanism justified by empirical observation and validated physical and chemical law". Things which are natural have known explanations when investigated.

Secondly, what is the physical basis for not considering the CO2 which is known to be emitted from the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels, whose exploitation is a physical fact? In a nutshell, where does that human-emitted CO2 go in an alternate hypothesis, and why is the increase which was observed natural, and not due to this known human activity?


First of all, I misinterpreted the use of Natural to be solely regarding levels of CO2.

Secondly, I do not dispute the increase of CO2.

Thirdly, given that nature contributes 95% of CO2 production in any given year... we seem to maybe be choosing to affect the least of the contributors rather than addressing the low hanging fruit.

Fourth, CO2 levels are not at nor are they even close to historically high levels.

Fifth, the last time that CO2 levels reached 1000 ppm (end of the Triassic, I believe) man was not even in the picture, so obviously mankind is not a requisite, nor even a major player in the generation of CO2 levels.

If you have a problem (example) in business that you wish to solve that involves a number of components that have to be addressed the first one you attack is the largest contributor...the "lowest hanging fruit". Now, I do not know what that would be in CO2 production, but if man's contribution is in the single digit percentage range it seems that there is likely a single contributor out of the 95% that we can, perhaps, easily affect.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Mamatus
At this point I could care less if it is humans that caused it or not. This constant arguing as to the why of it, is taking away from the argument we should be having. Which is; What can we do about it?. It is time to find solutions all this blame game crap is simply a distraction.

The Koch Brothers (and others of their ilk) don't want to face up to their societal obligations. Constant arguments (many funded directly by the Koch's) are nothing more than a distraction.


Mamatus hits the nail on the head. When discussing climate change we can't blame one ideology over another. Yes I said ideology, hell "Global Warming" has become a theology in both camps. Both sides have become so entrenched they won't acknowledge the facts. Facts are that the climate is changing (it always has and always will). We don't have records of pre-melt or pre-iceage climates to compare with what is going on today. Even if we did, was volcanic activity effect on climate the same as the modern day industrial complex's effect? These fundamental questions we don't have an answers for. We do have fact though, sea levels have risen. Ice caps have receded and this has had an effect on climate. Who cares what caused it. I'm more concerned about the people of all nations that will and are affected on a daily basis by these changes. Tornado alley has expanded farther in every direction. Winters have become a succession of radical temperature fluctuations and heavy snow falls for areas that had until very recently rarely seen snow and or cold. Summers have become blast furnace hot and coupled with higher than normal wind speeds across the planet makes for very dry and drought like conditions. Rainfall patterns have changed and this has affected the growing seasons and soil quality in many countries. There are lots of issues and most of the people in charge of either the science or the legislation would rather fight amongst one another than come up with viable solutions not just to save the planet but, to at least adapt to these changes we're experiencing.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Wiregrab
 


I agree. We should be planning how to address specific effects of climate change (adaptation) not how to "change" climate to suit us. In that case the law of unintended consequences will get you every time. If the science of climatology were further advanced, then perhaps, but most certainly not in the current stage.

Climate change and it's effects will happen slowly giving us plenty of time to adapt, unless we are also too stupid to do that now.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


My bad pal, I do tend to be more pessimistic when reading replies!

I understand how difficult that would be to even acknowledge & muster a plan for, let alone attempt!
You are 100% correct!

I wasn't trying to gloss over other factors, as you said there are a great many, some of which we probably won't understand for a long time!

But I would also say the main factor to all this is our nuclear activity!!!
I would theorise that in the last 200 odd years that nuclear progression has been the most prominent towards the current changes we have seen and ultimately face!
I think it would be suicidal, self-centred and obnoxious to believe our involvement hasn't played a big part, or to ignore certain factors, even 25% would be a huge amount, my own theory taking all considerations of human activity pushes that closer to 50+%!!!

That's not to say we shouldn't look at non-human additions either, that would be equally suicidal!

I think the blame-game has been played for way too long, and has taken considerable time & effort away from finding solutions to the problems ahead of us!

Peace.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join