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.
My point is scientists should be working to prove it wrong.
I'm not sure where you're getting that figure. The proposed US budget for climate change research is $2.6 billion. That's 0.07% of the total budget and when considering the number of scientists, technicians, and institutions that are involved, it's a pretty small investment and no one is getting wealthy on it.
The fact that so many are not trying to prove it wrong makes me believe they are all on the 12 billion climate change cash train.
originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: Phage
Phage, can you explain why it is that you are so vehemently against the very idea that these people are not above fudging numbers to push an agenda?
Is it because you can't abide the thought that you bought into a lie?
originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: Phage
There has been very few times in history when the scientific community was 99% in agreement on anything that is wasn't later proven wrong.
There was a point where 99% of the scientific community didn't believe plate tectonics was happening, however 1 lady Marie Tharp eventually proved them all wrong.
My point is scientists should be working to prove it wrong. The fact that so many are not trying to prove it wrong makes me believe they are all on the 12 billion climate change cash train. I believe eventually one scientist will, and the new climate model he/she discovers will revolutionize how we see climate in the future.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
I have always found it strange that our Supreme Court never vote 100% one way or another on their findings. These are extremely smart people with similar educations/experiences, who all read/study the same information and come to completely different conclusions.
I find science somewhat the same way that 100 scientist can have very wide range of conclusions all looking at the same material.
It seems that there are other motivators involved a lot of the time in all if this than just the basic truth.
originally posted by: deloprator20000
I have read the article on "the telegraph" and the author did NOT present exactly where the data was modified or how it was modified.
That is a non-sequitur. Just because rising CO2 levels followed rising temperatures in the past, it does not mean that rising CO2 levels do not cause rising temperatures. The physics of radiative forcing shows that they do.
so increased CO2 does not produce temperature change,
No. Sunspots are cooler than the rest of the photosphere, that's why they appear dark. But it is true that the increased solar activity associated with increased sunspot numbers does cause an increase in total solar irradiance. This is nothing new. The thing is, there hasn't been a significant change in total solar irradiance.
They now know that the internal umbra of sunspots are far hotter than the surface of the sun and increased sunspot activity does increase solar irradiance at various frequencies.
Are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Seriously? You think that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation? In any case, to answer your question, it's because CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) levels have never been sufficient to result in "runaway" warming.
So if increases in suns output increases CO2 and CO2 is greenhouse gas why hasn't the earth gone into a runaway warming event in past.
Not any that have anything to do with science.
Some school of thought believe that increased CO2 levels actually reflect more solar irradiance so its mother earths protection from increased solar irradiance not the bad guy that science wants you to believe.
Maybe. If my uncle was a woman he would be my aunt. So what? But sunspot activity has not been "switching off." It's been a low cycle, yes.
But when we have higher levels of CO2 and Sunspot activity switches off ( which it has been doing) earth could go into a cooling event very quickly (less than 10 years).
You didn't provide your source but that study is talking about what happens at the very outer regions of Earth's atmosphere (aka, space). It also is talking about what happens when CMEs (not solar electromagnetic radiation) encounters those outer regions. It has absolutely nothing to do with warming (anthropogenic or otherwise). It also says that those outer regions heat up, so much so that they expand:
"A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere.
During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, extra drag helps clear space junk out of Earth orbit. On the other hand, it decreases the lifetime of useful satellites by bringing them closer to the day of re-entry.
"Although the recovery of Arctic sea ice is certainly welcome news, it has to be considered against the backdrop of changes that have occurred over the last few decades," Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study, told The BBC. Shepherd added in a press release: "It's estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years.”
According to the ESA, roughly 90 percent of the growth is due to the increase of multiyear ice -- the ice that survives more than one summer without melting. In previous summers, some of the ice migrated to Alaska and Siberia, where it melted. But in 2013, because of a change in wind patterns, the ice that would have normally taken a hike stayed put.
Very early predictions were for a stong cycle. The prediction made in 2009 has been shown to be quite accurate.
I have been watching sunspot cycles very closely, when NASA was predicting increased solar activity, reverse occurred.
Maybe. But predicting more than one cycle in advance, before the minimum, has not proven very successful to date.
Now the sunspot cycle is lowest for the last century and could actually disappear all together.
As I pointed out previously, the "little ice age" began before the Maunder Minimum. There was more to the little ice age than solar activity.
If Sun enters another Maunder Minimum which causes a little ice age then most of us will die.
I don't. My daughter and her kids are not going to have a pleasant time of it. But what I hope doesn't count for much.
So I hope you are right about Global Warming and I am wrong.