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.

 

"The World Is Warming Faster Than We Thought"

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Where can I find a good list of scientists and scientific organizations either proposing or denying Man Made Global Warming?

Having a hard time finding anything in one place besides NASA?

Thanks!


climate.nasa.gov...

opr.ca.gov...

There are no actual scientific organizations denying global warming or the causative influence of humans through greenhouse gases.




posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: mbkennel


If it's a "natural cycle", what's the nature of the cycle? What's the physical mechanism? What are the observational signatures? How does it override the effect from increased greenhouse effect?

Do science, and deny ignorance.


Oh right, you mean like how is it possible to blame climate change on AGW when the Earth has been warming since the 1600s almost 300 yeas before the height of the industrial revolution?...


Did you answer the question of what your proposed alternate mechanism other than greenhouse warming is? What's the physics of that? How does it quantitatively match the data? How does it counteract known driving from CO2 and other human greenhouse gases? (CO2 is about half the total human effect, which includes on the + side deforestation and other lesser greenhouse gases, and on the cooling side, increased aerosols/smog)

Because that's what the data says. From 1600 to much later the warming, if any, was small.

thinkprogress.org... -carbon-pollution/

An sceptic with actual scientific and statistical expertise took on the problem of re-analyzing all the data with a significant team.



Professor Muller: CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.





Or how can you blame climate change on anthropogenic CO2 when in the troposphere water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect yet climate change is largely being blamed on "anthropogenic" CO2 by some people?...


Stop! This has been answered over and over, and you're impervious to listening to the answer!

To everybody else:

a) the influence of water vapor as driving is large (bigger than CO2) but not 95%.
b) it doesn't change the conclusions and the experts have known this since, oh, the beginning of the field decades ago.
c) Water vapor has a timescale of residence in the atmosphere 2 weeks---CO2 a timescale of 100+ years. Because there are large oceans, the amount of water vapor is a RESPONSE to temperature.
d) climatologists take this into account
e) the total size of the greenhouse effect, (natural) is very large, and much of that that's due to water and natural pre-human CO2. Without water vapor's greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a 100% lifeless glacier.
f) humans doubling CO2, the 2nd most important driver, can make a very significant effect on climate nonetheless. The predicted change of 20% of the natural effect would still be huge on human terms like the magnitude of the Ice Ages but in the other direction.
g) we know this from historical climate records & physical modeling

If we were digging out fossil water and spewing it into the atmosphere, would it contribute to global warming? No. Because it wouldn't stay there and would quickly be equilibrated in the immense water cycle turnover with the ocean.

There are no oceans of CO2, there is of water. CO2 stays, water doesn't. The physics is different.

edit on 25-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Wrong again.........keep guessing....

warming?
Is this by statistics or by whay uve been told?
Did you feel it warmer or u believing it because u are told so?

Nothing to do with pole shift or the increased density of frequency cloaking from technology?



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

You mean the same "anthropogenic CO2" which was supposed to have increase temperatures tremendously and should have made the Arctic completely ice free by now? For how many years did the AGW proclaim that the "Artic will be completely free" yet it hasn't happened?...

Your arguments derive from the false predictions made by GCMs. The majority of which have been proven wrong and the "predictions" have had to be changed repeatedly.



Even though GCMs are claimed to be very accurate, this is not true.



Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...



The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...



Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...




BTW, I am aware the above graph doesn't go back to the 1600s, and I also know that there were still many parts of the Earth that were undergoing cooling. But global borehole temperature readings show the warming since the 1600s.



As to what could have been causing the Earth to warm since the 1600s?

The sun and interplanetary disturbances as our solar system moves into different regions of space. Earth is not the only planet with an atmosphere in which dramatic changes and warming has been occurring.

So how could global borehole temperatures show warming when many parts of the world were still under a cooling period because of the Maunder Minimum? The Solar System is not static, it is always moving through space, and not all regions of space are the same. The sun, the Earth and all the planets with an atmosphere will react and change if the solar system environment changes as we move into different regions of space which cause interplanetary disturbances.

Today GCMs mostly, and if they do, take into consideration TSI (Total Solar irradiance) and neglect variations of the solar wind, interplanetary magnetic field and energetic particles, and changes in the overall environment our solar system moves into.



edit on 25-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

Stop! This has been answered over and over, and you're impervious to listening to the answer!

To everybody else:

a) the influence of water vapor as driving is large (bigger than CO2) but not 95%.
b) it doesn't change the conclusions and the experts have known this since, oh, the beginning of the field decades ago.



Really?... I have stated many times that depending on who you ask it is believed that water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect. Here is the figure from one scientist who believes that mankind can influence climate change...


LA Times, Dean Kuipers
Several readers pointed out an omission in last week's post about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s release of its Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, which showed that man-made gases that contribute to global warming continued a steady rise. The post -– and the AGGI –- mentioned carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other gases, but failed to mention the biggest contributor to global warming: plain old water vapor.

“I want to comment that the way-dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not mentioned, namely water vapor,” writes Ken Saunders of Pacific Palisades. “Water vapor accounts for about 97 percent of the total (natural plus man-emitted) greenhouse warming of the planet. See, e.g., John Houghton's ‘The Physics of Atmospheres, 3rd edition,’ Cambridge University Press, 2002.

This is true, water vapor is the major player in the greenhouse effect and is often omitted from reports and reporting about global warming -– mostly because it is more of a symptom than a cause in global climate change, and cannot be easily mitigated.

Tom Boden, director of the U.S. Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, acknowledges in an email: “Folks are right when they state water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas and not routinely measured directly in the atmosphere. Atmospheric water vapor is difficult to measure, highly reactive, and variable in amount due to meteorological conditions (i.e., atmospheric water vapor is continuously being generated from evaporation and continuously removed by condensation).”
...

globalchange.mit.edu...



originally posted by: mbkennel
c) Water vapor has a timescale of residence in the atmosphere 2 weeks---CO2 a timescale of 100+ years. Because there are large oceans, the amount of water vapor is a RESPONSE to temperature.


Wrong...first, the half life of CO2 is not 100+ years... The residence lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is very variable and studies have shown that it can be from about 5 years to an average of 15 years or so. Individual molecules of CO2 have a residence time in the atmosphere of about 5 years.

Second, and I have already responded to this, CO2 changes LAG temperature changes by an average of 800 years. For the most part CO2 changes LAG behind temperatures. When there is a change in temperatures, atmospheric CO2 also changes "naturally". Although there is a correlation between the two, this correlation is not linear, it changes with time and other natural factors which can, and do affect changes in atmospheric CO2 such as geothermal activity, warmer ocean temperatures due to increased geothermal activity, or a meteor impact, etc.

Despite the claims made mainly by the "policy makers" at the IPCC, mankind is not the sole factor behind the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 200+- years. Remember, as I have stated in the past, that global borehole temperatures have shown that since the 1600s Earth has been warming, and as it warms there are natural increases in atmospheric gases including water vapor, CO2, methane, etc due to changes in Earth's core. Logic would dictate that Earth's core changes have been occurring since the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening and our sun has also been experiencing an increased activity, both of which are tale-tell signs that Earth's core should have also been changing which in turn would be the cause for an increase in seismic and volcanic activity.

Since the Earth had been warming for almost 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution it is not possible for neither anthropogenic CO2 to have caused all the warming as claimed by the AGW crowd. Nor, is it possible that manmade CO2 is solely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. BTW, before you jump the gun, which I know you will do, notice that I stated "mankind is not solely responsible for the increase in CO2". This is not saying that anthropogenic activity is not responsible for part of the increase in CO2, which of course anthropogenic CO2 would be partly responsible. But, what the AGW crowd fail time and again to comprehend is that Earth has been undergoing OTHER CHANGES during that time which can, and does influence atmospheric gas content due to the increase seismic and volcanic activity, which would occur mostly in our oceans since our oceans are littered with volcanos and underwater volcanos by far exceed the number of volcanoes found in dry land. There are an estimated over 3 million underwater volcanos, compared to the about total 1,500 volcanoes that have been active on land during the whole lifespan of Earth. In "recorded" history there had been a total of about 600 volcanos "on land" that have been active.

For example, we know that since around 1840 or so Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, and it's weakening has been exponentially increasing. We also know that solar activity, such as the increase in TSI during quiet periods (solar minimum), and magnetic storm activity has been increasing since around the time period that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening. Both of these factors tell us that Earth's interior has been changing which would logically point to an increase in seismic and volcanic activity. Both, the changes in the sun and Earth's magnetic field are factors that do affect also Earth's climate and the levels of atmospheric gases which in turn will also affect global temperatures.

Third, proxy records include data from boreholes, corals, tree-rings, lake and ocean sediments, ice cores, etc, and despite all the exaggerations made by the AGW crowd about the CO2 content in proxy records, the data from "past" proxy records" do not correctly reflect what will happen with "current atmospheric changes."

Also, remember that the 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperatures it's an average, there are many variables that can, and do affect this lag making it at times longer, and at other times much shorter. The likelihood of an increase in variables (natural factors) affecting not only this lag, but in general the data from proxy records increases with, and is affected by time. The longer the timeframe of a proxy record that you are studying the more likelihood that more natural variables have affected that data hence you cannot make a correct correlation between changes in CO2 and temperatures from proxy records




c3headlines.typepad.com...

jennifermarohasy.com...



edit on 1-11-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and links.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...

Also, remember that the 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperatures it's an average, there are many variables that can, and do affect this lag making it at times longer, and at other times much shorter. The likelihood of an increase in variables (natural factors) affecting not only this lag, but in general the data from proxy records increases with, and is affected by time. The longer the timeframe of a proxy record that you are studying the more likelihood that more natural variables have affected that data hence you cannot make a correct correlation between changes in CO2 and temperatures from proxy records




c3headlines.typepad.com...

jennifermarohasy.com...



Ok, something happened last night that when I edited my above comment the site didn't update all of it apparently because there wasn't enough space to post everything I wrote. It was late and I wanted to sleep so here is part of the rest of my argument that I wrote last night.

When I stated above "The longer the timeframe of a proxy record that you are studying the more likelihood that more natural variables have affected that data hence you cannot make a correct correlation between changes in CO2 and temperatures from proxy records" that comment should have included that "you can't correlate correctly current atmospheric and temperature changes, with changes in the past from proxy records".

The reason for this is the following. The content of gases found in proxy records do not truly reflect all the atmospheric changes and temperature changes that were occurring in that time frame.

People seem to think that perennial ice/glacial ice traps only the air bubbles that were present in the atmosphere in the past during a certain time frame, but this is not true. Only a fraction of the atmospheric gases that were present in the atmosphere at a certain time frame are trapped, and due to conservative, and nonconservative forces the initial mixing ratio of air bubbles trapped in firn mixes with snow from other layers/other time frames.

Only the snow in firn (newly formed snow)contains the initial mixing ratios of air bubbles that were present in the atmosphere at a certain time frame. Changes due to conservative and nonconservative forces occur in this initial mixing ratio during the thousands of years that it takes for the snow in firn to become glacial ice/perennial ice, due to the snow being compacted under the weight of new snow falling on top of it. As the weight increases on top of underlying snow eventually it shifts the snow with older and newer layers and mixes the air bubbles from different time frames. This mix is not always constant, earthquakes and geothermal activity can cause the mixing of air bubbles from different time frames to be more extensive.

Also, glacial snow that is closer to the bedrock can be melted by geothermal activity and mix with the glacial ice from newer layers on top of it mixing the data from different layer of ice.

The older the layer of ice that is used for proxy record studies the less and less reliable that the data is.

Other proxy records have similar problems, for example biases in tree ring proxies.


Spectral biases in tree-ring climate proxies
Jörg Franke,
David Frank,
Christoph C. Raible,
Jan Esper
& Stefan Brönnimann
Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author
Nature Climate Change 3, 360–364 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1816 Received 14 December 2011 Accepted 07 January 2013 Published online 03 February 2013

External forcing and internal dynamics result in climate system variability ranging from sub-daily weather to multi-centennial trends and beyond1, 2. State-of-the-art palaeoclimatic methods routinely use hydroclimatic proxies to reconstruct temperature (for example, refs 3, 4), possibly blurring differences in the variability continuum of temperature and precipitation before the instrumental period. Here, we assess the spectral characteristics of temperature and precipitation fluctuations in observations, model simulations and proxy records across the globe. We find that whereas an ensemble of different general circulation models represents patterns captured in instrumental measurements, such as land–ocean contrasts and enhanced low-frequency tropical variability, the tree-ring-dominated proxy collection does not. The observed dominance of inter-annual precipitation fluctuations is not reflected in the annually resolved hydroclimatic proxy records. Likewise, temperature-sensitive proxies overestimate, on average, the ratio of low- to high-frequency variability. These spectral biases in the proxy records seem to propagate into multi-proxy climate reconstructions for which we observe an overestimation of low-frequency signals. Thus, a proper representation of the high- to low-frequency spectrum in proxy records is needed to reduce uncertainties in climate reconstruction efforts.

www.nature.com...

The capture and use of CO2 done by trees and other plant life is not solely dependent on the amount of CO2 contained in the atmosphere. The availability of water, among other factors, affects the amount of CO2 trapped and used by a tree. Hence affecting the reliability of tree-ring proxy records.

Despite all the claims of the contrary paleoclimatology is simply "the best guesstimates" that can be done with the data that can be obtained but it does not reflect exactly what has happened in the past.


edit on 1-11-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
You could have all the data in the world, set up like a picture book, and still, would you not need to do more than go outside and observe for yourself. Best evidence is around you already, take the temp, compare it to other temps in a 50 year time span for your local area. Extremes are there, and it's kinda getting to the point you just can't ignore it, of course folks will want to not believe it, it's so far out of their control it's scary to them, so what else would people do in that circumstance? They'd ignore it.

I was a huge weather buff as a kid, I loved tornadoes, Hurricanes, and just freak storms. Since I'm about 15 years older now, I have observed from just living life, extremes have occurred more so like clockwork, rather than the freak events they used to be. And interesting enough they're growing, and aren't limited to geographical areas anymore. It's everywhere.

Not saying that data is useless, just that, it's all around you, and really spelling something interesting, can say an speculate whatever you want, but you can't ignore it, it's a new feature of this planet, and one that's increasing in abilities.

Chicago's windy waves, South Carolina's snowstorms, and the temps, oh man, the temps we're in the month of November, and we have temps of 70s to 38? nice, 80s in South carolina with a drop to 34 and snow?

How about anyone else, what have you observed without a computer?



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The Climate is changing, we all agree on that.
We all agree that the climate has always changed on Planet Earth, it is researched and documented, it is a fact.
Can we as mere humans do anything about it?, the answer is No.
We adapt, we have to adapt just like all life on this Planet and our ancestors.
Some species will make it, some will evolve, some will disappear, again, exactly as had happened in the past billions years or so.
Should we cry or argue over it, as humans are wont to do, or just live with it?
While its all very well some experts talking about the "Greenhouse" effect and how water vapour will cover the Earth and we will turn into Venus.....well thats just quackery and bad science.
To start with Venus is Much closer to the Sun, and would be much hotter regardless.
Its atmosphere is dense vapour (sulphuric acid apparently), any oceans are presumed evaporated/boiled, its has many (we dont really know) active Volcanoes, it has a Very Slow rotation ( one Venus Day is up to 224 Earth Days)...in other words, Venus is one very hostile planet. In fact we know diddly squat about Venus....in comparison with Mars anyway.

We are also told by "Scientists", that clouds in our atmosphere reflect the Sun's rays, so here is the expert catch 22....the cloulds cause greenhouse effect and warming, but the clouds reflect Sunlight as well, so therefore, would that lead to Global cooling?.
That was the premise for the Ice age.....as more ice developed, more of the Sun's rays were reflected, which meant more cooling and less heating.
Our Mother Earth is on a fine line between hot and cold all the time....not mentioning any threats from Outer Space (no, not ET), like comets, asteroids etc.
We have had a reasonable 10-20,000 years or so, of good human living weather.
That will change, regardless of whether humans debate it or not.
Welcome to the Universe.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: gort51

While its all very well some experts talking about the "Greenhouse" effect and how water vapour will cover the Earth and we will turn into Venus.....well thats just quackery and bad science.
Venus has very little water vapor in its atmosphere. We are not really concerned about water vapor turning Earth into Venus. We are, however, concerned about CO2 raising global temperatures enough to make life very unpleasant and to cause serious problems with our current way of life.

www.universetoday.com...



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: gort51
Venus has very little water vapor in its atmosphere. We are not really concerned about water vapor turning Earth into Venus. We are, however, concerned about CO2 raising global temperatures enough to make life very unpleasant and to cause serious problems with our current way of life.

www.universetoday.com...


It's not as if Earth has had up to 12 times as much atmospheric CO2 as there is now and it never turned into Venus right Phage? But all of a sudden mankind starts emitting some more CO2 and suddenly the earth will end as we know it because of "mankind." Never mind the fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, that there has been an increase in seismic and volcanic activity and it doesn't seem to be stopping. Some just want to blame a gas which is known to have "benefitted" the Earth's ecosystem many times in the past, but now all of a sudden "it's a catastrophe". Never mind the real toxic chemicals and gases being emitted, let's just blame a "benign" gas based on a theory which has been proven wrong time and again by observational evidence.

Heck, never mind that the solar system will very likely be well within a new interstellar dust cloud within 100 years. Evidence seems to show that the solar system has already encountered scattered cloudlets of the interstellar dust cloud, which could be the cause for all the changes happening not only on Earth but also the warming on Mars, and the other extreme changes in climate and in the atmosphere observed in the other planets in the sol system.

Never mind either that Venus apart from having a CO2 atmosphere is also a lot more denser than Earth's and it's not because of CO2 but it's because of sulphuric acid and various other corrosive compounds that are making the dense cloud on Venus exacerbate the warming there. Instead let's just claim "it's just the CO2 which composes 96% of Venus' atmosphere" and the same thing will happen on Earth with only 0.03% atmospheric CO2 content by volume.

I have to wonder what sudden magical happenstance can make the 0.039% CO2 that makes up Earth's atmosphere suddenly cause it to have a similar catastrophic effect as is happening in Venus in which not only does CO2 composes 96% of it's atmosphere, but which also has sulphuric acid and other corrosive compounds for dense clouds.





edit on 2-11-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.




top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join