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.

 

13 Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Please go back to what I typed to you. It literally starts from the second sentence that "does" address co2 emmited from underwater volcanos.

When they measure co2 from "oceans" the co2 from volcanos is part of that and would be counted as co2 emissions from "oceans".




Now the above research is only taking into consideration volcanos on land, and not underwater volcanos...


When they measure co2 from "oceans" the co2 from volcanos is part of that and would be counted as co2 emissions from "oceans".



nd then we would also have to add to all of the above the 139,096+- underwater volcanos... Do you get it now, or you can't still understand what we are dealing with?


When they measure co2 from "oceans" the co2 from volcanos is part of that and would be counted as co2 emissions from "oceans".

Do you get that?

Let me ask do you still cling to your statement before that co2 does not affect ocean PH?



Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.volcanoes.usgs.gov...

edit on 28-9-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

First of all, there is the claim that a lot of CO2 that the oceans have been emitting are caused by the increase in anthropogenic CO2, and not because of underwater volcanos, or so claim the AGW advocates. The increase release of CO2 from the oceans brought the claim from the AGW camp that "the oceans can't handle so much CO2" in the atmosphere. How do we know that increase was not caused by underwater volcanic activity?

So this claim of yours that " CO2 emissions from underwater volcanism is already counted for" is a lie. The increase release of CO2 from the oceans has been blamed by the AGW camp on anthropogenic CO2, and not on underwater volcanic activity...





edit on 29-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Let me ask do you still cling to your statement before that co2 does not affect ocean PH?


First of all, how about you post WITHIN CONTEXT what I was talking about?...

Second of all, from that same link you gave...


...
One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate.
...

volcanoes.usgs.gov...

Do tell me Grimpachi, are the estimated 139,096 active underwater volcanos equal, less, or more than the 11,000 volcanos estimated to be needed as an equivalent of active volcanos that would emit as much co2 as humans?...



edit on 29-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Actually, no I didn't. You see, I've been down this road before, and it's your place to present data to me, not my place to find your research. In actually I recognized most of those sites anyway... been there plenty of times. Most of the times I have been there I have been reading over studies and reports so I can tell whoever sent me there what the actual data says if it's not cherry-picked and/or misinterpreted.

I really don't have time for that tonight. Sorry.

I'm still waiting for a simple answer to my question... how did high CO2 concentrations form in ice if CO2 melts the ice?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: lakesidepark




AGW proponents can't risk attributing their data to the 'heat island' effect of the development of cities....it has to be assumed nothing local changed except the temperature...and BAM you have a dramatic warming effect that graphs very well!


Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. Real Climate has a detailed discussion of this here. What’s more, NASA GISS takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations. It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data.

But heavy duty data analysis and statistical processing aside, a little common sense and a couple of pertinent images should put this idea to bed. Here is an image, taken from Astronomy Picture of the Day, of the surface of the earth. It is a composite of hundreds of satellite images all taken at night. (The large version is well worth the download time!)

Aside from being very beautiful, it is a perfect indicator of urbanization on earth. As you can see, the greatest urbanization is over the continental United States, Europe, India, Japan, Eastern China, and generally coastal South America.

This next image was taken from NASA GISS. It is a global surface temperature anomaly map which shows warming (and infrequently, cooling) by region.

Look at North America, look at Europe, at Asia, Australia, Africa and the Poles and compare them to the urbanization in the image from APOD. There is quite simply no way to discern any correlation whatsoever between urbanization and warming. If the UHI effect were the cause of warming in the globally averaged record, we would see it in this map.

The claim that global warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island Effect is simply an artifact of the Urban Myth Effect.

For more wiki has a page on this Urban heat island



A 2003 paper (“Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found”; J climate; Peterson; 2003) indicates that the effects of the urban heat island may have been overstated, finding that “Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.” This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas). As the paper says, if its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to “unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming.” The main conclusion is that micro- and local-scale impacts dominate the meso-scale impact of the urban heat island: many sections of towns may be warmer than rural sites, but meteorological observations are likely to be made in park “cool islands.”



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




First of all, there is the claim that a lot of CO2 that the oceans have been emitting are caused by the increase in anthropogenic CO2, and not because of underwater volcanos, or so claim the AGW advocates. The increase release of CO2 from the oceans brought the claim from the AGW camp that "the oceans can't handle so much CO2" in the atmosphere. How do we know that increase was not caused by underwater volcanic activity?


Please tell me you remember my reply to you stating we can determine the sources of co2 by carbon 13 and carbon 12.

At 3:07 in the video which I also referenced to you it talks about how we know if it is natural co2 or from man made sources.

Carbon 13 is found naturally and we are seeing a reduction in that isotope. If we are finding a reduction in natural co2 what should that tell you?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




First of all, how about you post WITHIN CONTEXT what I was talking about?...


Look you have zero room to complain in that department. Every time I chop of one head two more grow back going in different directions. Electric hydra universe. lol So please do tell just how many underwater Kīlauea volcanoes volcanoes are there. You see that s called a qualifier furthermore it also went on to say.


would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor


So tell us just how many more of those are there?

Again it also goes back to traces of carbon 13 are decreasing while co2 levels are rising. How do you account for that?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


Carbon 13 is found naturally and we are seeing a reduction in that isotope. If we are finding a reduction in natural co2 what should that tell you?


It tells me to heavily scrutinize and question the sources of the data.





posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grimpachi

Actually, no I didn't. You see, I've been down this road before, and it's your place to present data to me, not my place to find your research. In actually I recognized most of those sites anyway... been there plenty of times. Most of the times I have been there I have been reading over studies and reports so I can tell whoever sent me there what the actual data says if it's not cherry-picked and/or misinterpreted.

I really don't have time for that tonight. Sorry.

I'm still waiting for a simple answer to my question... how did high CO2 concentrations form in ice if CO2 melts the ice?

TheRedneck


Well thanks for stopping by not looking at the links then asking questions that don't pertain to the OP. You are not the first and probably not the last. As I had already said I am a horrible debater and I never claimed to be an authority on all that is climate change, however with many of the replies here it has been really easy though a bit tiresome to answer them. The reason I say that is many didn't even watch the video before posting so all I had to do is look up the links (same ones I directed you to) to answer them.

So to answer your question I would need to go looking up a myriad of other things which I have been doing in several instances throughout but as you said you don't have the time but if I were to hazard a guess it would be air bubbles.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Grimpachi


Carbon 13 is found naturally and we are seeing a reduction in that isotope. If we are finding a reduction in natural co2 what should that tell you?


It tells me to heavily scrutinize and question the sources of the data.






Maybe you could shoot of an E-mail to WUWT suggesting they do that, assuming they haven't already tried. That is if you don't think peer review already does.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


I could explain it myself, but typing with one hand gets tiresome. I rather excerpt the response from a post that Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. made in his website.



Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural?
January 21st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’ve usually accepted the premise that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. After all, human emissions average around twice that which is needed to explain the observed rate of increase in the atmosphere. In other words, mankind emits more than enough CO2 to explain the observed increase in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, the ratio of the C13 isotope of carbon to the normal C12 form in atmospheric CO2 has been observed to be decreasing at the same time CO2 has been increasing. Since CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning is depleted in C13 (so the argument goes) this also suggests a manmade source.

But when we start examining the details, an anthropogenic explanation for increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes less obvious.

For example, a decrease in the relative amount of C13 in the atmosphere is also consistent with other biological sources. And since most of the cycling of CO2 between the ocean, land, and atmosphere is due to biological processes, this alone does not make a decreasing C13/C12 ratio a unique marker of an anthropogenic source.

This is shown in the following figure, which I put together based upon my analysis of C13 data from a variety of monitoring stations from the Arctic to the Antarctic. I isolated the seasonal cycle, interannual (year-to-year) variability, and trend signals in the C13 data.



The seasonal cycle clearly shows a terrestrial biomass (vegetation) source, as we expect from the seasonal cycle in Northern Hemispheric vegetation growth. The interannual variability looks more like it is driven by the oceans. The trends, however, are weaker than we would expect from either of these sources or from fossil fuels (which have a C13 signature similar to vegetation).

]Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC’s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year.



In fact, it turns out that these large year-to-year fluctuations in the rate of atmospheric accumulation are tied to temperature changes, which are in turn due mostly to El Nino, La Nina, and volcanic eruptions. And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming.
...

www.drroyspencer.com...

You can read more in Dr. Roy Spencer's website in the link above.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


To bad he didn't submit that for peer review.

And he is another guy with ties to the Heartland institute. I asked you this before and got crickets so I will post it again.




I have asked this before and never got a good answer.

How are these minority of "experts" (I use that term loosely) such as watts selected for their information on this subject over the equally qualified (usually more qualified) colleagues?

Are they chosen based on agreeable conclusions rather than scientific rigour?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

First, you have never been able to chop any head, figuratively speaking, and yes you need to quote in context instead of twisting what others say.

Second, underwater volcanos in average are much bigger than their land cousins.

For example, the largest volcano found recently is underwater.



Doesn't look big right?...


By Brian Clark Howard

National Geographic

Published September 5, 2013


A volcano the size of New Mexico or the British Isles has been identified under the Pacific Ocean, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) east of Japan, making it the biggest volcano on Earth and one of the biggest in the solar system.


Called Tamu Massif, the giant shield volcano had been thought to be a composite of smaller structures, but now scientists say they must rethink long-held beliefs about marine geology.


This finding goes against what we thought, because we found that it’s one huge volcano,” said William Sager, a geology professor at the University of Houston in Texas. Sager is lead author in a study about the find that was published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience.

It is in the same league as Olympus Mons on Mars, which had been considered to be the largest volcano in the solar system,” Sager told National Geographic.


Tamu Massif is a rounded dome that measures about 280 by 400 miles (450 by 650 kilometers), or more than 100,000 square miles. Its top lies about 6,500 feet (about 2,000 meters) below the ocean surface, while the base extends down to about 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) deep. Tamu Massif dwarfs the largest active volcano on Earth, Mauna Loa in Hawaii, which measures about 2,000 square miles (5,200 square kilometers).
...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

That's just one. The really big volcanos are classified as "seamounts", and I gave a picture of the "known" seamounts so far.



Then again, underwater volcanos don't have to be so huge to cause such an impact, they can be as small as the smallest volcano on land and still have an impact. More so with the numbers we are talking about.



edit on 29-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: correct error.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I know it is hard but I asked you a couple of direct questions.




So please do tell just how many underwater Kīlauea volcanoes volcanoes are there.


The question wasn't "are there bigger ones" I already knew that answer.

The article also said



It would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor


Then the direct question I asked.



So tell us just how many more of those are there?


BTW I don't think mid ocean ridges are the same as your seamounts. If you dont know thats fine just say so.

Edit to add:

Take your time answering. Not that it hasn't been fun killing time but I have to be in Miami at 8am and its a long drive to a place I can't stand so I am going to take off. Maybe when I get back tonight we can pick this up.


edit on 29-9-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: lakesidepark

...

What’s more, NASA GISS takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations. It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data.




You do like to make large claims which never seem to be true. Do tell us, is this why on several occasions NASA scientists have been trying to tell the public the truth about AGW/Climate Change?...

Such as...

If you go to the end of the link below you can read.




...

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

That's from NASA buddy. Want to see it again?

Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

But how can he say that right?... HOw is it possible that a NASA scientist would say that it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of "pollution" from urban areas?... Remember that CO2 has been "labeled as a pollutant?...

Maybe it has something to do with this other fact...



Former Astronauts & NASA Employees Letter on Global Warming

Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer | April 12, 2012 10:02am ET

Editor's Note: This is the text of the letter sent by 49 former NASA employees to the agency asking it to stay out of what they see as a politicized and unsubstantiated field — human-caused global warming. It was originally posted on the blog Watts Up With That?

A NASA spokesman confirmed that the agency received the letter on Tuesday (April 11). [Read the full story about the letter]

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

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.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

...

www.livescience.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Heck, I could spend all night on the website posting what the "real scientists" have to say, and the reasons why so many of them have left the AGW camp, such as.


January 17, 2005


Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

Posted to Author: Others | Climate Change | Science Policy: General

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,


After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

Heck I could post so many more comments made by "real scientists"... And yes I refer to them as "real scientists" because the ones you like to quote have been found on many occasions to be lying, posting false data and false information. They take steps to deny the availability of data to researchers, and other scientists simply because of a difference in opinion on the topic, etc, etc.

That site you "love" to excerpt from "realclimate.org" has as directors Michael Mann, the author of the Hockey Stick hoax, and Gavin Schmidt among others, and these two were also part of the "climategate scandal".

BTW, despite the claims that "there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who agree with AGW" this is a lie. First of all, there are no thousands of thousands of scientists experts in any of the fields of climate change. Second of all, there are many, many scientists, including from other fields, who have come forward to explain the reality of climate change and AGW.

BTW, the list of climate scientists who "believe" in AGW is getting smaller, and smaller.

The latest addition being...


Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'

One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.

Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift - "I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are" he recently told Germany's Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an "alarmist" - his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.

"He's a big, big player. The biggest by far to change sides," says the GWPF's Benny Peiser. "What's particularly significant is that his speciality is climate modelling - and computer models, as you know, are at the heart of global warming theory. He is the most significant figure to admit, as many modellers are beginning to notice, that there is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what the real world data is actually telling us."

In his interview with Spiegel Online, Bengtsson said:


"I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."

Bengtsson went on to reject another pillar of the warmist faith - the existence of a "consensus."

I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless.

He believes that policymakers should be much more cautious in making decisions about the long-term future of climate when the facts are still imperfectly understood.

...

www.breitbart.com...




edit on 29-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
heck, let's continue the list of some of the formerly AGW people who have recently changed sides.


...
Others include:

James Lovelock; English scientist; inventor of Gaia Theory; godfather of Green.

Formerly an arch-exponent of man-made climate doom theory, predicting as recently as 2007, that "billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic". Now admits: "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we did 20 years ago." Pro-nuclear; mildly pro-fracking; anti-wind farms.


Judith Curry - American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Though still a self-described "luke warmer", Curry was probably the most senior member of the warmist establishment - up until Bengtsson's defection - to fraternise with the enemy. This has earned her the badge of honour of being labelled "anti-science" by Michael Mann. In her blog Climate Etc she tries to encourage climate alarmists to show a sense of proportion and admit the limits of their knowledge.
Of the National Climate Assessment report, she wrote:


My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change.

Fritz Vahrenholt - German professor; environmental activist; one of the founders of the German green movement; former Environmental Senator of Hamburg.

Vahrenholt's climate-sceptical bestseller Die Kalte Sonne (translated as The Neglected Sun) sent shock waves through the German green movement. It earned him the title "eco-reactionary" from the left-liberal German media which was appalled at what they saw as his betrayal of the Cause. Vahrenholt argued that the sun - not CO2 - was the most significant driver of climate change; that predictions of man-made climate doom had been overdone; and that science had been corrupted by political indoctrination.


Sigmar Gabriel - German vice-chancellor; ex environment minister; formerly an enthusiast for green energy policy; now admits that Germany's Energiewende - its transition to renewables - has been pointless and destructive.
...

www.breitbart.com...

Humm, I wonder who will be next?




edit on 29-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I know it is hard but I asked you a couple of direct questions.



Hummm, an average of 139,096 active volcanos... I wonder what the percentage would be for a portion of those underwater volcanos to be part of one of the mid-ocean ridges... Maybe grimpachi would love to volunteer himself and swim all the way down there to find out exactly for himself... I definitely vote for that.


Hey, you should check it out once you get to Miami.


edit on 29-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The ice cores cover the past 800K years. At no time in the past 800K years were CO2 levels higher than they are now.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


Well thanks for stopping by not looking at the links then asking questions that don't pertain to the OP

Thank you, but I believe my question relates directly to the OP. It goes to the heart of the veracity of the data. If the data is not scrutinized, it means the data is not valid.

That's how science works... not via videos, not via papers presenting an opinion, but by actually taking the data, scrutinizing it, considering the ramifications, and then looking to see if there were any errors in judgement forming those opinions. It's why today we can circumnavigate the globe without worrying about falling off the edge. It's why we can have these magic little boxes in our living rooms that have little people living inside and doing things to entertain us. It's why we can send a rocket into space, precisely acquire a target, and then have sensors examine it. None of these things would have been possible if it were not for people asking the hard questions and refusing to accept less-than-logical answers.

Pop science has done a lot to help inform people, but it has also apparently done much to prevent people from becoming educated. The difference is that education stresses understanding of the basic principles involved, while information is simply acquisition of believed facts... facts which may be proven right or wrong at any time. A good example is the GISS map you posted above. What exactly are we looking at? Temperature? No! We are looking at a composite image formed by analysis of long-wavelength EM waves detected by the sensors. Now, do these waves represent temperature? We believe so; there are mathematical relationships between frequency and temperature that appear to hold. But what if I were to construct an emitter that produced long-wavelength EM waves of the proper frequency? It would skew the data.

Knowing things like this allow us to properly scrutinize data and give us insight on how to use it. Without this knowledge, it's a purty picher to look at.

This is why you are having such a hard time battling back the questions. In the end, if a result is questioned, the burden of proof is not on the refuter, but on the proponent. If I ask a question that casts doubt on your position, it is your responsibility to answer that question to the extent that I am satisfied with the answer. If you answer and I refuse to consider your answer, then I cast doubt on my ability to effectively question, but if I consider the response and find it lacking the question has simply not been resolved. Unresolved questions mean more research is needed.

You won't even answer a question:

if I were to hazard a guess it would be air bubbles.


Really? Air bubbles is how air bubbles managed to form in ice that they should have melted? Did you read my question?

The bottom line is that this is the modus operandi for AGW theorists: present an opinion, cherry-pick data (and even try to hide data) to support it, then loudly proclaim that all has been said on the subject that need be said. The subject is closed; I win!

You don't win. That's how politics works, not how science works.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join