Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

15,000 scientists issue 'warning to humanity'

89 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

TripGun

15,000 quoting from the same information is the same as one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
third_eye

:lol:

Wow ... that's some mind bending logic right there ...

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
6 hours ago, TripGun said:

15,000 quoting from the same information is the same as one.

That's a perfect response from someone who:

- didn't read any of the thread

- didn't read the article

- didn't read the study

I don't think anyone else needs this clarification, so just for you, Trip..

The study covers a wide range of different disciplines, and the scientists are specialists in those different disciplines.

So your use of the term "same information" (and your conclusion) is ....   well, what's the term for 'beyond daft'..?

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TripGun
On 11/20/2017 at 4:40 PM, ChrLzs said:

That's a perfect response from someone who:

- didn't read any of the thread

- didn't read the article

- didn't read the study

I don't think anyone else needs this clarification, so just for you, Trip..

The study covers a wide range of different disciplines, and the scientists are specialists in those different disciplines.

So your use of the term "same information" (and your conclusion) is ....   well, what's the term for 'beyond daft'..?

Well, ok then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 11/13/2017 at 0:56 PM, Kismit said:

Seriously, a few years ago I started asking what would happen to the environment if we all stopped trying to tame our yards and let earth get on with her own natural process of evolution. 

I tried that.  Lots of complaints from my neighbor about the dandelions.  I offered to let him dig them up.  Needless to say, they're still there.

I did mow it, about three times a year.  And I try to rake up the leaves about once a year, but with trees all over the neighborhood, that's a hopeless task.

At least, my dogs and kids don't get cancer from playing in the yard.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Monk

Earth will be fine. It will be around for another 4.5 billion years or so.

Edited by Black Monk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
On 11/14/2017 at 1:32 AM, spud the mackem said:

I don't think that scientists are scare mongering, have you walked along any beaches lately and seen all the debris and dross washed up, mountains of plastic rubbish , old tyres, wire netting etcetera ,and that's just on one beach. If we don't start acting responsibly the oceans could become barren in the near future all plant and animal/fish life would become extinct and the oceans would be like the DEAD SEA. therefor a lot of humans would starve to death, give it some thought man and act responsibly.

Pollution concerns is not the same as apocalyptic scare mongering so some people can make some money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
On 11/14/2017 at 9:28 AM, Emma_Acid said:

Blah blah blah. "I'll only take notice when I get the sort of evidence I want". 

This is a pretty good case for why you're wrong.

LOL, the whole goal of science is understanding our physical world so we can predict the future when certain things happen.  One of the major aspects of the scientific method is observation after an hypothesis is made.  We have all the apocalyptic hypothesis that the scientists have concocted to try to understand these natural forces but when we go to try to observe whether these hypotheses are correct we find there's no evidence to support them.  That is unless we lie and change the historic climate data or change the measurements of the current climate data.  It's just plain BAD SCIENCE as it fails the scientific method.

Edited by Noxasa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
On 11/14/2017 at 10:17 AM, Doug1o29 said:

There are over 300 climate models with varying levels of accuracy.  Most are intended for specific purposes, like predicting water levels in the Arkansas River Basin.  That one would not be very accurate in a different basin, like the Amazon.

There are almost 100 global climate models that have been around long enough for observational verification through the scientific method.  Zero percent of them have correctly observed and verified their climate hypothesis under the scientific method for the current climate data without either modifying the current raw climate measurements or modifying the decades old historic climate data.  That's not verification, that's changing the data to say what you want it to say.

Quote

That the climate is warming and precipitation patterns changing is easily proven.  Oklahoma City warmed about 0.558 degrees F. during the 20th century.  That's not a prediction; it's what actually happened. 

Global climate has been warming since the 1700's so it's not really something that needs to be proved as it's easily observed.  What needs prove is what is causing the warming.  A detailed look at solar activity and cycles can explain almost all of the warming that we've observed since the 1700's.  But that's not an answer many institutions want to hear because they get millions for their departments the more they scare governments and people in to believing that we are the cause of this warming.  I say fine, if you think it's due to human activity then prove it through the scientific method.

Scare mongering is something scam artists do.

Quote

It's the consequences of that warming that are being debated.

Well, the consequences of a natural warming need not be debated, really, until it becomes a problem.  What's being debated is if human beings are causing it.  I see no scientific data through the application of the scientific method that proves that humans have anything to do with it.  And if humans don't have anything to do with it then we're just along for the ride and will adapt as best we can as we've done throughout our evolution.

Edited by Noxasa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NiteMarcher

Corporations today are all linked by the same fabric and for it to continue in their favor, its necessary to create various types of on-going scenarios for the the public to gobble up, digest and spit out. In the process of all of this the main goal has been to sell, sell and keep selling whatever it is that pertains to whatever subject of interest at that time. Aquifers world wide aren't owned by the small guy...and this commodity will soon be the world's number one in the very near future if just one country should decide to use any type of nuclear weapon on another. 

On the other hand, the Scientists themselves are rewarded for giving their own biased opinions according to what the stockholders wish it to be. Everyone one of them

works for someone who holds the strings to the purse...the Corporations themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

LOL, the whole goal of science is understanding our physical world so we can predict the future when certain things happen.  One of the major aspects of the scientific method is observation after an hypothesis is made.  We have all the apocalyptic hypothesis that the scientists have concocted to try to understand these natural forces but when we go to try to observe whether these hypotheses are correct we find there's no evidence to support them.  That is unless we lie and change the historic climate data or change the measurements of the current climate data.  It's just plain BAD SCIENCE as it fails the scientific method.

Please give me an example of what you're talking about. What phenomena, which hypothesis failed and why it "failed the scientific method". An example of where historical climate data has been changed would be good too.

Not trying to trap you, just want examples of what you're talking about. Its very easy to fling accusations around, but around here you need to back them up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

A detailed look at solar activity and cycles can explain almost all of the warming that we've observed since the 1700's.

Can you cite this please. And don't do the usual thing of telling me to "look on the internet".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
15 hours ago, Noxasa said:

There are almost 100 global climate models that have been around long enough for observational verification through the scientific method.  Zero percent of them have correctly observed and verified their climate hypothesis under the scientific method for the current climate data without either modifying the current raw climate measurements or modifying the decades old historic climate data.  That's not verification, that's changing the data to say what you want it to say.

Once again:  if a model does the job it's supposed to do, then it is successful.

Climate models are scientific learning tools.  When they do not produce results consistent with observations, they show us where to do more research.  That's their job.  They are not weather-forecasting tools.

Within ten years we should begin seeing GCMs that are accurate enough to use for local forecasts.  Things like:  how much water will this storm drain have to handle?  How high do the abutments on this bridge have to be?  Can we build a flat-topped building in Minneapolis?  These are based on forecasts of the worst-case scenario over the next 30- 50- 100-years, etc.  Climate is about long-term averages.  It can predict a 100-year flood, but that's really a 50% probability during the next 100 years.  We can't say whether that flood will arrive today or in 2116.

15 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Global climate has been warming since the 1700's so it's not really something that needs to be proved as it's easily observed.  What needs prove is what is causing the warming.  A detailed look at solar activity and cycles can explain almost all of the warming that we've observed since the 1700's.  But that's not an answer many institutions want to hear because they get millions for their departments the more they scare governments and people in to believing that we are the cause of this warming.  I say fine, if you think it's due to human activity then prove it through the scientific method.

Since the 1720s, to be more exact.  The world has been recovering from the Little Ice Age.  The last low-temperature spike from the LIA was in 1841.  In Oklahoma, the exact date is January 17, 1841; although, there is some variation in different parts of the world.  The LIA is a phenomenon of the Atlantic Basin and is not evident even in all of that.  Elsewhere, it is hard to find evidence of it, though its presence has been shown by some tree-ring studies.  In other words, the Little Ice Age was a product of reduced flow of the Gulf Stream.

Global temperatures passed the high set by the Medieval Warm Period in the 1940s.  To say that we're still coming out of the Little Ice Age is to include everything since the Altithermal (8000 YBP) in the Little Ice Age.  It is also to neglect the sudden increase in the rate of rise that occurred in 1910 and continues, with a couple of gaps, to the present.

Each change in the rate of temperature rise is occasioned by a change in ocean circulation.  The 1976 excursion was brought on by a new evaporation basin in the Drake Passage.  The "hiatus" (1998-2005) was caused by the warm pool in the western Pacific forcing equatorial currents to dive beneath it.  The recent record highs are the result of the El Nino excursion.

Long-term warming has been caused, in part, by the Bond Cycle, a 1500-year cycle that brought on the Roman Warm Period and peaked again in 2006.  This is overlain by human-caused warming (about 1.5 degrees in the last 150 years) whichs enhances the effect of the Bond Cycle.  The Bond Cycle is now starting to decline, but in the early stages of a 1500-year cycle, the effect is hard to even measure and that is being swamped by human-caused effects.

 

You rant about "science" and want evidence supporting climate change.  Here's an article for you:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

 

If you are really interested in human causes of warming, you will need to study isotopes.  Plants use carbon12 and carbon13 slightly differently, resulting in different proportions of these isotopes in different types of material.  The proportion of C13/C12 in the air is rising and has been at least since the 1960s when measurements began.  That means that carbon from once-living things is being released to the atmosphere.  Now where is that carbon coming from?

Material from permafrost has a higher C13/C12 ratio than what has been observed from the atmosphere.  So it's probably not permafrost.  Petroleum has a lower proportion, so it's probably not petroleum.  The deep oceans have a huge reserve of C12, but are relatively poor in C13, so it's probably not the oceans.  The C13/C12 increase in the air carries the coal signature.  That's the likely candidate.  So how is C13 from coal getting into the atmosphere?

There are other sources of carbon that are being added to the air, too.  When forests are cleared, soil organisms consume the residual organic matter, converting it to CO2.  Same when grasslands are plowed - "sod busting."  Over-grazing produces the same effect.  The one thing all these different things have in common is:  people.

16 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Well, the consequences of a natural warming need not be debated, really, until it becomes a problem.  What's being debated is if human beings are causing it.  I see no scientific data through the application of the scientific method that proves that humans have anything to do with it.  And if humans don't have anything to do with it then we're just along for the ride and will adapt as best we can as we've done throughout our evolution.

Global warming has already created the warm pool in the western Pacific that gave us the recent severe El Ninos.  It has caused the Polar Vortex to relocate over Greenland in the late wainter, bringing severe winter weather to New England, eastern Canada and the Great Lakes.  It's hard to say for sure, but this recent spate of hurricanes may have been caused by warmer seas surface temps, resulting from global warming.  It is already a problem.

Whether humans cause global warming or not, we have the ability to do something about it.  Why accept a degraded planet when we don't have to?

Doug

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Noxasa, add me to the list of folks who want you to CITE those handwaves...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.