It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko
It is you who is demanding a college dropout to have a PHD understanding in this, when you have yet to demonstrate an undergraduate understanding of this subject.
While you are an excellent debater, it does not change any facts.
I have referenced 3 PHDs in this subject and crunched some numbers so this board is clear how I derive my numbers. I am a numbers kind of person.
It appears that the 40% rise of CO2 concentrations, 280ppm was the pre industrial era count. Now we are at 400ppm. It also appears we are currently experiencing a 20ppm rise in CO2 per decade......
This figure shows the atmospheric increase of CO2 over 280 ppm in weekly averages of CO2 observed at Mauna Loa. The value of 280 ppm is chosen as representative of pre-industrial air because it is close to the average of CO2 measured and dated with high time resolution between the years 1000 and 1800 in an ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica. [Etheridge et al., 1996]
originally posted by: redtic
Yeah, full disclosure - I'm not an expert on climate science. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say neither are you. I base what I believe on what a consensus of scientists is telling us - and, yes, there is a consensus. You, you believe what you say because, I don't know, Rush told you so? There's probably been thousands of global warming threads where the graphs, links, etc have been posted by both sides, so that really doesn't matter any more - it all comes down to - why do you believe what you believe? What has taken you there? For me, logic dictates over emotion. Don't even tell me there's a consensus that is anti-global warming, because there isn't. If that were the case, that would likely be my course. But it's not, and therefore it isn't.
A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.
An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglias climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.
Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
originally posted by: jrod
So the 40% is now not true because you say so?
What argument and claims are you referring to that you have debunked? Please show math or sources that show observed data. A bunch of links only proves someone has an agenda to push.
Cite me a PHD who is an expert in the field of atmospheric chemistry who will dispute the 280ppm, 400pp, and 20ppm/decade rise we are currently observing.
This is not a debate, science is not decided by who wins a debate.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
Members should provide to the research and education communities, for their non-commercial activities, free and unrestricted access to all data and products exchanged under the auspices of WMO . . .
Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."
I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.
Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
originally posted by: defcon5
originally posted by: FarleyWayne
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ... ( March 2007 )
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
To my knowledge, that's been disproven:
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
Mar. 20, 2003
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the sun's total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978. The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978 - 1993). Other records came from NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980 - 1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991 - 2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. The European Space Agency's (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set (1996 to 1998).
In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.
NASA's ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 experiment began in 2000 and will extend the long-term solar observations into the future for at least a five-year minimum mission.
Willson, R.C., and A.V. Mordvinov 2003. Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21-23. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, no. 5, 1199, doi:10.1029/2002GL016038.
Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
for National Geographic News
May 11, 2006
Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.
The finding could help scientists better understand the way Earth's magnetic poles reverse.
The planet's magnetic field flips—north becomes south and vice versa—on average every 300,000 years. However, the actual time between reversals varies widely.
The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.
Since 1840, when accurate measures of the intensity were first made, the field strength has declined by about 5 percent per century.
originally posted by: Phage
Yes. It is pretty well accepted that higher (Arctic) latitudes should be experiencing cooling rather than warming. But they aren't.
originally posted by: Phage
Much warmer? It doesn't look like that to me. The chart shows that northern Scandinavia may have been 1 or 2 tenths of a degree warmer during previous Holocene warm periods. In any case, here is what Wilson, a co-author, said about the study:
Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct.
Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA All rights reserved.
Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Fekri A. Hassana,
aInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, WC1H 0PY, London, UK
Available online 7 June 2007.
Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur atAD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Therein lies the problem, the majority of the AGW crowd BELIEVE in AGW "because that's what some scientists are telling us". People like you do not base your opinion on evidence but just on "belief", this is what makes AGW the religion of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century...
You see, you should do some real research on AGW instead of basing your opinion "on belief"... Is this what you call science?... To believe what the AGW scientist proponents claim?...
Here are some of the things your AGW scientists have been doing meanwhile people like you, a majority of the AGW crowd, keep basing your opinion on "believing" the lies of the AGW scientists...
It's great to question - question everything. But whose bandwagon are you riding on? Or are you doing your own ice core research? If you have a group of very intelligent people who comprise about 98% of experts in a field, and then you have the other 2% of supposedly intelligent people telling you the opposite - who are going to believe? And why? I find it remarkable the total imbalance that the "consensus" represents in the scientific field, and yet the AGW skeptic crowd represents likely a good majority of a certain party. I can't find any other explanation for the unreasonable denial than party adherence, or groupthink. It's certainly not logical nor is it rational.
- The first result of the study is the clear evidence that there has been no increase of variability during the past 250 years in the region.
- We can show that also this recent anthropogenic normal period [1981-2010, red.] shows no widening of the PDF (probability density function) compared to preceding ones.
- It shows that interannual variability changes show a clear centennial oscillating structure for all three climatic elements [pressure, temperature and precipitation, red.] in the region.
- For the time of being we have no explanation for this empirical evidence.
World’s Largest Scientific Society Rejects Man-Made Climate Fears
WORLD’S LARGEST SCIENCE GROUP REJECTING MAN-MADE CLIMATE FEARS
By Marc Morano
July 31, 2009
An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”
The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the “world’s largest scientific society.”
The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”
Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.
The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”
50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming
James Delingpole · Apr 11 at 1:40am
Science is not a numbers game. As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough." (H/T Marc Morano)
Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam.
The letter says:
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.
originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
As Ray already pointed out, the percentage of the carbon isotope that represents human emissions is not 40%, so a large part of the increase is from natural sources too.
Can you prove that CO2 stayed constant at 280ppm? You can't, because the records show spikes all over the place, some as high as 600ppm, so good luck with that.
Science is not decided by wide acceptance and consensus either. It is through experimentation and observation that leads to predictions that can be proven repeatedly. Global warming is still a theory, let's make that distinction very clear. There is no "settled science" as long as you have groups of scientists who keep opposing and presenting evidence that contradicts the claims.
Countless times, "laws" of physics and long-standing ideologies have been challenged and proven to be wrong, after being "widely accepted" or deemed true "by consensus". Everyone agreed that the Earth was flat. By your standards, it should be a FACT still. Yet, someone challenged it and it was PROVEN wrong, even though the ESTABLISHED, AGREED UPON AND CONSENSUS VIEW fought tirelessly that the proof was wrong when the evidence was staring them in the face.
Recall that, if the Gulf Stream breaks down as a result of diminished salinity of the oceans (due to freshwater influx from melting land ice, which itself would be due to increased global temperatures)