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.

 

Don't believe the world is warming? Fever Rising will convince you!

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Before I respond to any of this, I was wondering if you care to provide a few links to back up some of this information, such as your claims that we are actually in a cooling stage. Is this your opinion?

14 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998


Two government agencies said Tuesday that 2013 was among the warmest years in the global temperature record, though they differed on exactly where it ranked. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ranked it as the fourth-warmest year since 1880, tied with 2003. NASA, which uses slightly different methods to compile global temperatures, ranked 2013 as the seventh-warmest year, tied with both 2006 and 2009. Both agencies say that the 14 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred since 1998. Australia was a global hot spot in 2013, suffering the warmest year on record in 104 years. But the United States, which had set a record in 2012, had only its 37th warmest year on record in 2013.


2012 hottest US year yet, by a whole degree


How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year’s 55.3 degree average demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.

If that does not sound sufficiently impressive, consider that 34,008 daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 record lows, according to a count maintained by the Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, using federal temperature records.

That ratio, which was roughly in balance as recently as the 1970s, has been out of whack for decades as the country has warmed, but never by as much as it was last year.


Sure, the US has been cool since its hottest year on record, but the rest of the world made up for that. Australia in 2013, its hottest year in 106 years.

And 34,000 daily US high records in 2012 versus only 6664 low records. These high and low records were usually in balance with each other all the way up to the 1970's when the high records went up and lows went down. So, tell me, where and how do you get information that says the world is cooling?




posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Yep, and the increase in ice coverage at both poles also increase the earth's albedo. Antarctic ice has increased by 18% over the last few years. The North Pole coverage has only increased the last year as opposed to multiple consecutive years of loss. It remains to be seen if the last year was nothing more than an anomaly.

As far as what effects GHG brings, that is up for debate as well. Question everything.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Bbracken in effect ! Bam!
Thanks B, you took the reply right out of my keyboard.
How does science, of all things,keep forgetting about that
VARIABLE, million mile wide, not so bubbling anymore,
cauldron in our sky ? Sheesh ....



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper
In September of 2013, methane levels had a peak reading of 2571 ppb


Horrendous. Thanks for keeping us all informed, Rez. I will be purchasing a copy of your masterpiece.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SteveR

Which is, what? 2.571 ppm? Co2 is at 400 ppm

So, exactly what does that mean in the real world?

The average sea level pressure is around 1013 mbar. If you live at a higher altitude the pressure will be less. Your barometer at 100 m above sea level will read about 12 mbar less. Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass there is above your head per square meter.
The ideal gas law can be written PV = RT where P is the pressure (Pascal), V is the volume (m3), R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average temperature (over some days). Let us now calculate the temperature in a 1 cubic meter volume at any height. Hence T = P/R, T is proportional to P and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude. It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude.
This decrease from the surface to the average infrared emission altitude around 4000 m is 33C. It will be about the same even if we increase greenhouse gases by 100%. This is a consequence of the ideal gas law, a natural law which politicians cannot change, but dastardly scientists can twist.

I used dastardly in a sentence again! Yeah! *high fives myself*.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Boy, you really like to toss around a lot of poop. I mean, you ask what does this mean in the real world and then you give response that only people living in another world could understand. Why don't tell us what you mean in layman's terms. I'm curious to know what you actually claim about methane levels peaking over 2,500 ppb, in our day and age, when these levels have consistently remained under 700 ppb for over 400,000 years, well, according to science anyways. Both methane and carbon dioxide are much higher than the norm. Is this something you deny, or in your opinion, it's not a big deal?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
Which is, what? 2.571 ppm? Co2 is at 400 ppm
So, exactly what does that mean in the real world?


The PPM in leaking areas is much higher, and CH4 is 86x worse than CO2, so understand that they are not equal. The PPM numbers cannot be compared directly without this context. Nice attempt at fooling people.


The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2


cleantechnica.com
edit on 2014/9/11 by SteveR because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Given that the ideal gas law pretty much accounts for temperature levels at altitudes regardless of co2 or methane content. Content that climate changers claims is responsible for the 33C in question.
Given that we are in a well established cycle of glaciation/interglacial periods and we are not outside the norms (I will give you recent history, geologically speaking with methane, which I will get into in a moment).
Given that we are still not at the interglacial high temps as seen in the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods.
Given that this interglacial is rapidly approaching the end.
Given that the IPCC has been caught doctoring numbers to support GW.
Given that the method for determining how much of co2 is man made is demonstrably flawed and literally laughed at by physicists.
Given that the earth's magnetic field is 15% weaker and increasingly accelerating over the last 100 years.
Given that the only time GHG ratio and temps correlate is during mid range comparisons but fail during short term and longer term comparisons.
Given that we have hit a 17 year pause in GW, yet GHG continues and the IPCC climate model failed to predict that.
Given that polar ice is growing. (yes, even the North Pole this last year, although one year does not a trend make)
Given that Antarctic ice has grown 18% over recent years
Given that the swings of glacial growth to interglacial periods and back all correlate with specific cycles of earth tilt and distance from the sun. (Malenkovitch cycles)


Given the above, and in particular the first given, I call BS on the whole man is responsible bovine excrement and question the whole doom porn crappola.

The ONE thing that does concern me is the methane. What I find odd is, if it is true, the sudden "melting" of methane in the oceans increasing methane levels beyond what has happened in previous interglacials as far as we know. Because simply put, temps got higher in previous interglacials and by definition, any "frozen" methane should have melted then as well.

On the other hand, due to physics, specifically laws such as the gas laws, which demolish claims made by the climate changers/GW advocates claims to such things as the 33C claim, I am beginning to believe that the GHG effect is not as represented. We do know that the increase in GH effect is not proportional to an increase in GHG. This is well established. The effect falls off logarithmically as more GHG is added to a system. This explains how co2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm and yet life was more diverse than ever. Doom porn, doom porn, doom porn.

On the other hand, 2.571 parts per million is still a small amount when all is said and done. I know you like the 2571 ppb, but that is just to make it seem like more, a bigger number which suits the doom porn agenda. Which is why I distrust crap when people misrepresent something. It is true... but in sticking to ppb instead of the more common ppm the reason for doing so is quite obvious.

What percentage of the atmosphere does 2.571 ppm represent? Want me to answer that?

Would anyone be surprised to discover that we were being lied to? Correlation does not equal causation.

I got married when the most recent warming trend began. I got divorced just after the turn of the century. Does that mean my first marriage was responsible for the warming of '1976 to 2000? Somehow I sincerely doubt it. But there are those who claim there are no coincidences, so it must be true.

Unless correlation does not, in fact, equal causation.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SteveR

originally posted by: bbracken677
Which is, what? 2.571 ppm? Co2 is at 400 ppm
So, exactly what does that mean in the real world?


The PPM in leaking areas is much higher, and CH4 is 86x worse than CO2, so understand that they are not equal. The PPM numbers cannot be compared directly without this context. Nice attempt at fooling people.


The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2


cleantechnica.com


This is the same IPCC whose climate model doesnt work and they do not seem to understand the scientific method? The same IPCC who failed to predict a 17 year pause in GW? The same IPCC who failed to predict the increase in arctic and antarctic ice? Antarctic ice that has grown by 18% btw. I could go on and on.

Yeah, that IPCC. lol okie dokie.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Did I answer your question suitably?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Oh, I forgot a couple of givens:

The current ice age began during a high period of GHG ratios. In other words, co2 levels rose, then the ice age began, then the co2 levels began to drop. Odd thing to happen if the GH theory is accurate.
co2 levels typically, historically, lag behind temperature rises by roughly 800 - 1000 years.
and last but not least
co2 is released into the atmosphere as a result of the warming of the oceans. (Sherlock could put this together in a London second).




edit on 11-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Wow...I hear crickets.......



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SteveR

later
edit on 12-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Rezlooper

Given that the ideal gas law pretty much accounts for temperature levels at altitudes regardless of co2 or methane content. Content that climate changers claims is responsible for the 33C in question.


Why do you think they call it the "ideal" gas law. Because it would be ideal if it were true but it's a hypothesis. Its an approximation. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to debate thermodynamics with you. It's an attempt to confuse what's really very simple.


originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Rezlooper

Given that we are in a well established cycle of glaciation/interglacial periods and we are not outside the norms (I will give you recent history, geologically speaking with methane, which I will get into in a moment).
Given that we are still not at the interglacial high temps as seen in the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods.


Would you provide links to where your information states the temperatures in those last interglacial periods.


originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Rezlooper

Given that this interglacial is rapidly approaching the end.


And how do you know this? Are you saying that we are entering a glacial period then or we are going to warm even further at the end of this interglacial as we did in the last one (in your opinion, of course). These are all your opinions, correct? Otherwise, could you please provide links to your evidence.


originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Rezlooper

Given that the IPCC has been caught doctoring numbers to support GW.


Really? Did they admit to this deceit? Or, is this some propaganda that works for those who need it to be doctored? I mean, really, who are the source articles for this...What's up with that, or Forbes magazine. Lol. Please, provide the links to the actual study, and then tell us who paid for it.


originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Rezlooper

Given that we have hit a 17 year pause in GW, yet GHG continues and the IPCC climate model failed to predict that.
Given that polar ice is growing. (yes, even the North Pole this last year, although one year does not a trend make)
Given that Antarctic ice has grown 18% over recent years


More propaganda and more opinions. Please provide links. There's plenty of documentation to how temperatures are still rising. I've provided links earlier in this thread showing how we've had a couple of the hottest years on record, now you show me something please. And, ice is not growing, it's melting.


originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Rezlooper

The ONE thing that does concern me is the methane. What I find odd is, if it is true, the sudden "melting" of methane in the oceans increasing methane levels beyond what has happened in previous interglacials as far as we know. Because simply put, temps got higher in previous interglacials and by definition, any "frozen" methane should have melted then as well.

On the other hand, due to physics, specifically laws such as the gas laws, which demolish claims made by the climate changers/GW advocates claims to such things as the 33C claim, I am beginning to believe that the GHG effect is not as represented. We do know that the increase in GH effect is not proportional to an increase in GHG. This is well established. The effect falls off logarithmically as more GHG is added to a system. This explains how co2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm and yet life was more diverse than ever. Doom porn, doom porn, doom porn.


One of the things I recognize here is that you believe we may be warming, but it's cyclical. You don't believe it's man made. If that's so, then we agree on something. And that should be of great concern for all of us. It's true, our planet has gone through these up and down swings and some of them quite quickly, like the Younger Hydras, which were believed to have been a warming period that happened over 30 years at the end of the last ice age. And...we didn't cause it then. Regardless of what is causing the methane release today, it's happening and there is plenty of evidence to support it. Methane is 25 times more potent than carbon over a 20 year period. Methane release didn't concern most climate scientists over the years because its lifespan in the atmosphere is only about 9 years, but, now, the release and rise in levels is happening at such a faster pace that normal natural mitigators, such as ozone and hydoxl radicals, can't keep up and do their job. This is also because, not only is methane rapidly rising, but so is hydrogen sulfide, which eats up the radicals. We shouldn't be arguing about whether this is man made or not...it's happening and we aren't helping at all by being major contributors to it through our aquaculture, livestock, oil and gas extraction, landfills and, well, etc.


The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well-studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (Interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.

Various mechanisms, involving changes in ocean circulation, changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or haze particles, and changes in snow and ice cover, have been invoked to explain these sudden regional and global transitions. We do not know whether such changes could occur in the near future as a result of human effects on climate. Phenomena such as the Younger Dryas and Heinrich events might only occur in a 'glacial' world with much larger ice sheets and more extensive sea ice cover. However, a major sudden cold event did probably occur under global climate conditions similar to those of the present, during the Eemian interglacial, around 122,000 years ago. Less intensive, but significant rapid climate changes also occurred during the present (Holocene) interglacial, with cold and dry phases occurring on a 1500-year cycle, and with climate transitions on a decade-to-century timescale. In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of the Little Ice Age at about 1650 AD) probably occurred over only a few decades at most. All the evidence indicates that most long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes.


Source
edit on 12-9-2014 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

And one more thing about the Antarctic sea ice growing. Scientists believe this may even have to do with global warming.

Source article



Perhaps the most important fact about the (slight) increase in total Antarctic sea ice extent is that it masks major and contrasting regional changes. For example, there has been a strong decrease in sea ice duration in the Bellingshausen Sea, while the duration has increased in the western Ross Sea. Such curiosities have led sea ice scientists to investigate several possible mechanisms, and explanations for these patterns are now starting to emerge.




The Amundsen Sea Low is a pattern of low atmospheric pressure in the Pacific part of the Southern Ocean, which drags warm air south and pushes cold air north. This southward flow of warm air meets Antarctica in the Bellingshausen Sea, explaining why ice in this area is now in decline. Meanwhile, the cold air is being pushed north from the western Ross Sea — where sea ice extent is increasing. So the Amundsen Sea Low can be used to explain at least two variations in Antarctic sea ice.

The Southern Annular Mode (also called the Antarctic Oscillation) is a term that describes the north-south position of the westerly wind belt that encircles Antarctica in the Southern Ocean. These winds are known variously as the “roaring 40s”, “furious 50s”, and “screaming 60s” depending on their latitude, and when they meet sea ice they drive it northwards (away from Antarctica). Like many other climate patterns (such as El Niño/La Niña), SAM has “positive” and “negative” phases. A positive SAM pushes the winds south to higher latitudes, meaning they encounter more sea ice, pushing more of it northwards and increasing the total ice extent. The Amundsen Sea Low also strengthens with the Southern Annular Mode’s positive phase. The mode has been strongly positive over the past three decades, helping to explain the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, as well as the regional variations.

But that isn’t global warming … or is it?

Here’s the kicker: The strengthening of SAM over recent decades has been directly linked to human activity. Since the 1940s, ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gases have caused the westerly winds to intensify and migrate south toward Antarctica.




The net effect of this drives sea ice further north and increases its total extent. There is still plenty of great work ahead to improve our understanding and modeling of Antarctica’s climate, but a basic message is emerging. Far from discounting climate change in the Southern Hemisphere, the apparent paradox of Antarctic sea ice is telling us that it is real and that we are contributing to it. The Antarctic canary is alive, but its feathers are increasingly wind-ruffled.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

All theoretical, all biased.

And the word slight was used to describe the growth. 18% is hardly "slight".

More Antarctic ice = more albedo (more reflectivity).

Funny how they can blame the loss of Arctic Ice on man's activity and then turn around and blame growth of Antarctica ice on man's activities. lol

But... there is much we do not know about climate, which is why the IPCC model fails to predict anything accurately.

Rather than depend on a proven failure of a climate model, I find more truth in looking at what has happened in the past, what the cycles indicate and see where we are in the cycles. Again, we have not yet reached the high temps of previous interglacials even though we are approaching the end of this interglacial.

Then you have that pesky gas law thing... that explains 90%+ of the heat at the surface...heat that climate changers and GHG proponents attribute to the GH effect. Apparently totally disregarding the fact that gas under pressure is a higher temp than gas under less pressure. Gas under the pressure at the surface of the earth accounts for the vast majority of the heat. The effect of GHG, therefore, by definition is not as claimed.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper



Why do you think they call it the "ideal" gas law. Because it would be ideal if it were true but it's a hypothesis. Its an approximation. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to debate thermodynamics with you. It's an attempt to confuse what's really very simple.


Do just a tad bit of research. Your attempt to counter the claim by "discounting" a well known, well documented, and well tested THEORY (not hypothesis). Your attempt at blatant BS is pitiful. The Gas Laws have been around and withstood the test of time longer than you have been alive.

Boyle's law, Charle's law, Avogadro's law and Amonton's law are all derivatives of the Ideal gas law and are not dependent on Ideal conditions, but yet support the statement beyond any question. Temperature, pressure and volume are all related in easily described calculations.

Shoot that down.




Would you provide links to where your information states the temperatures in those last interglacial periods.


Google interglacial periods, ice age temperatures or various other permutations or perhaps best: Temperatures during recent interglacial periods.

It's common knowledge. There is but one interglacial whose top temp was where we are now, the rest reached higher temps.



And how do you know this? Are you saying that we are entering a glacial period then or we are going to warm even further at the end of this interglacial as we did in the last one (in your opinion, of course). These are all your opinions, correct? Otherwise, could you please provide links to your evidence.


LOL not my opinion but based on time frames and the established cycles which are primarily dependent on astronomical values such as earth tilt (a well documented cycle) as well as distance from the sun (another well documented cycle).

Indiana.edu Malenkovich cycles

Just an FYI. I am a semi-retired geologist who no longer practices.



Really? Did they admit to this deceit? Or, is this some propaganda that works for those who need it to be doctored? I mean, really, who are the source articles for this...What's up with that, or Forbes magazine. Lol. Please, provide the links to the actual study, and then tell us who paid for it.


Here is this, followed by the link:

Between AR4 and AR5, there have been quite a few scandals that have severely undermined the authority and validity of the IPCC.

For instance, AR4 warned that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, which sparked a furor among environmental scientists. Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria, who led a different section of the AR4 process, said, "It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing." The report also gave a wrong percentage for land in the Netherlands that was under sea level.

Furthermore, in 2009, an email chain between IPCC researchers was leaked, suggesting that scientific data was manipulated and figures compromised for the sake of producing a coherent report. (This scandal was — of course — named "Climategate.")

Critics accused the IPCC of "evasion of freedom of information law, secret deals done during the writing of reports ... a cover-up of uncertainties in the key research findings and the misuse of scientific peer review to silence critics."

That said, the IPCC has since learned its lesson. Climategate was "a turning point, a game-changer," according to climate change professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia. Scientific research will be more open, and scientists more engaged with their critics and the public.


This is one of those subjects that is likened to abortion discussion. Both sides are fervent fanatics lol. I have not read the emails and other data and I am not going to waste my time doing it. I will just stick with the science I know.

MIC (key, m o u s e)

Sorry...the link should be simply MIC but I could not resist
I have a sick sense of humor haha


Regarding your claims of opinions and, what did you call it? Propaganda? LOL okie dokie.
Arctic ice growth
NSIDC Arctic ice
Increase in extant Arctic Ice
Washington Post Antarctic ice

If you are going to call something propaganda you really should check the facts first. Easily done.

Regarding your statement that I "may" believe temps are rising. I am a geologist. I do not argue with facts. I know it is rising. I also know the rest of the story. Man's contribution to climate change is overstated, with agenda. Follow the money. Who benefits from man made climate change? The little guy or a select few millionaires? Does that sound familiar in any way? Who would not benefit if climate change was not man made? The little guy or the millionaires who have invested in green? Where does the money climatologists get for research? Is more money awarded to those who support climate change or not? Think about it.

How would you suggest that we stop climate change? Kill all the cattle? Eliminate vehicles that consume carbon for fuel? Bear in mind that electric cars, unless recharged from nuke plants or wind mills have a higher carbon footprint than modern gas burners.

Does man actually have the tech, the know how, the ability to stop climate change? Specially if climate change is due to astronomic cycles? Do we even know enough about climate to make appropriate decisions?
Is there any way we can stop the tundra from melting? Is there any way we can prevent the "frozen" methane in the oceans from melting?

Bottom line is this: There is no reason whatsoever to be alarmed about temperatures that are well within prehistorical norms for interglacial periods.

Here is some more data regarding cycles:



Based on his calculations, in 1941 Milankovitch postulated that insolation in the summer characterises the ice and warm periods at sixty-five degrees north, a theory that was rejected by the science community during his lifetime. From the 1970s, however, it gradually became clearer that it essentially coincides with the climate archives in marine sediments and ice cores. Nowadays, Milankovitch's theory is widely accepted. "Milankovitch's idea that insolation determines the ice ages was right in principle," says Blatter. "However, science soon recognised that additional feedback effects in the climate system were necessary to explain ice ages. We are now able to name and identify these effects accurately."

Source

In the below link, you will see a couple of graphs that will illustrate some of the more salient points I have made. This is an academic source. Geology.Utah



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I ran out of room.....

I have more. I do not use opinion, unless I state it as opinion. Otherwise if I say that previous interglacial periods experienced higher temps than today, you can take that to the bank.

I can also show you more material that casts serious doubt on the whole greenhouse thing. In other words, the ability of GHG to affect temps to the degree they are currently represented by some climatologists. In fact, the likely affect of GHG is vastly overstated.

Did you know that normally glacial growth periods begin with high levels of co2? In addition it normally only takes a few thousand years for all that ice to melt away to practically nothing. Yet, during the melting phase typically co2 levels are low.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

After all of that, only one thing you said sums it up perfectly...follow the money. You asked who benefits by climate change, but who really benefits by denying it? Oil and gas. After you said this part, you sort of went into a rant about defending gasoline engines over electric engines. I guess we all have agendas.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join