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.

 

Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

page: 11
48
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: PeterMcFly

The more you say, the less I think you understand the science.

Sorry for being that rude but this is my impression.


Precisely why I suggested he just stop talking 2 pages ago...but I admire your patience in dealing with the endless revolving door of circular talking point madness.

...
Anyway to bring it back to the issue of uncertainty versus economics for a sec - anybody remember this popular video from many years ago:



It was the first instance of the global warming "debate" I ever experienced. I remember watching it at the time and thinking, wow what a sane, logical way of putting things. I naively thought at the time the whole debate was like this! (ooops)




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Looks like they've run off again to preserve their arguments for another day, another thread. Really, I think it all comes down to Liberals agree that this current warming is caused by human activity so it must be wrong. It's amazing how easily hatred overcomes logic.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ok..I will start at the bottom:

The one year arctic ice growth, granted, may be nothing more than an anomaly and I have stated exactly that in other threads. However the growth of sea ice in the Antarctic is of the "multi-decade" variety. So is the reduced rate of global warming over the last 2 decades vs what was predicted...significant difference. And...they did predict this, I did not. Say what you will, but they are the ones with shoe/mouth syndrome.

A quote from your link:


A more modern correlation between the solar modulation of the cosmic ray rate, as measured from neutron monitors, and the low level cloud cover (measured from the ISCCP IR data) [10] during the period 1983–1995 (solar cycle 22) was noted by Svensmark et al [11, 12]. Here the neutron monitor data were used as a proxy for the ionization rate in the atmosphere. Marsh and Svensmark [12] observed a dip in the low level cloud cover between 1983 and 1995 which followed closely the decrease in the neutron monitor data due to the 11 year solar cycle.


Note the reference to a dip in the low level cloud cover in this paragraph...which followed the decrease etc etc

Followed by:


However, the correlation was examined by Voiculescu et al [15] who showed that it was not a global phenomenon but that it only existed in certain regions covering a fraction of the globe. Hence the effect can only be used to explain a fraction of the global warming seen in the twentieth century.


I am not unfamiliar with some of this research. Oddly enough, as I understand it, the "certain regions" are the equatorial oceanic regions. So I question the "fraction". lol.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

This is not a liberal vs conservative question, or it should not be.

Are you saying that we should NOT question the science behind AGW? Odd...I thought that was a major component of how science is advanced and not science by consensus. Particularly when govt grant dollars are not awarded to those whose research does not support AGW. Want to research climate data at a university? Try proposing anything that sounds even vaguely anti AGW and see how much support you get.

Keep in mind that the climate models are nothing more than hypotheses. You do know what an hypothesis is, right?

This should be nothing more than a discussion about the science.

Your post is rather...well, I will not express myself fully other than to say that it seems a bit nasty.

Now I will get caught up on what I have missed the last couple of days. Between babysitting grandkids, my wife's recuperation from surgery and the super bowl I have not had a lot of time to devote to ATS. But hey...perhaps I was just trying to ...whatever it was you implied.


edit on 2-2-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

True enough, but 50 million years ago would NOT have seen the difference in solar radiance you and others are trying to push. You are just repeating the mantra because...that's what you do.

Show me some research, data collected, or ANYTHING that would suggest that 50 million years ago solar radiance was below what it is today by...say, more than 1-2% maximum. 50 million years compared to the life cycle of the sun is nothing. Try again.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bbracken677

Solar output was up to 30% lower in the past because that's how stars evolve.

So you're a Geologist and yet you've apparently never heard of the Faint Young Sun Paradox, one of the most notorious and ubiquitous issues in the entire field?


As for the rest of your claims/questions/accusations - I already addressed these in my last thread. You declared that you would be back within 24 hours with peer-reviewed evidence to refute everything, at which point you of course never returned.

Now here you are several weeks later sticking your head into this discussion and throwing the exact same unsubstantiated memes at others...what a surprise.


Sorry buddy, my wife had surgery and getting back to ATS seemed rather insignificant in comparison.

Hang in there, I will present more. I just posted one paper.

Oh, yeah, you were the one who tried to tell me NOT TO POST THIS CRAP TO YOUR THREAD. I have an idea about you and apparently there is much insecurity involved.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: grey580

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to take a look around you and see the extreme weather changes for yourself. Quit watching your local news and start watching WORLD headlines and you start to see a trend.


I keep hearing predictions for more and stronger storms, yet that hasn't happened. You seem to think that making the prediction means it happened.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bbracken677

Given that in past interglacial periods carbon has risen along with temperature, and yet we are led to believe that ALL the increase since industrialization is attributable to man.
The vast majority, yes. But lets say you're right. Let's say that CO2 levels are rising because temperatures are rising. What's causing temperatures to rise? Is the Sun getting hotter? How much?

I have much respect to you, Phage, based on numerous other posts, but this is just plain disappointing.
It is a given that as temperatures rise, co2 levels also rise due to our oceans storing co2 when cooling and then releasing co2 when warming. This is not an hypothesis, this is a fact. Quite verifiable. This is why in past interglacial/glacial periods co2 levels followed temperature changes by roughly 800-1400 years depending on whose research you believe is best...note that none mention the opposite relationship.
Why are temperatures rising? Temperatures have been rising, in general, since the end of the last period of glaciation. Duh.
Has man played a part? No doubt...I object to ignorant, disengenuous, facile explanation that all temperature increases of the last 150 years and all co2 level increases are due to man's activities. This is just simply BS of the highest order and anyone with a knowledge of how these processes works and just a tad of logical reasoning should be able to deduce that nature has a hand in both as well.
There are cycles in play....many many cycles. It was hot in the 30s, cold in the 40s, hot in the late 50s, early 60s, and cool in the mid 70s, and again hot in the 90s. Are all they cycles of relatively faster increases and slower coolings due to man's activities? Oh hell no. Is the overall trend upward? Ayup... Is the overall trend upward due simply to man's activities? Nope...we are still in an interglacial period, we have not yet reached the peak in temps as seen in previous interglacials so, to my way of thinking, a warming trend is exactly what one should expect with zero influence by man. Obviously, man is having some influence, however NOT 100% of the phenomena we see as being presented by the mulit-billionaire AGW crowd and parroted by others.

All I ask, is that we not accept the dogma (specially when too much is presented in a method which does not promote objectivity) but examine the facts for what they are, the hypotheses for what they are and use a bit of critical thinking instead of swallowing wholehog the swill we are tossed. By both sides, I might add. I am often embarrassed by the stupid crap the anti-AGW crowd tosses up simply because it is stupid crap. But then the pro side can be every bit as disengenuous, just with a little bit of superior attitude tossed in.




It is my understanding that the claim comes from "since co2 levels were high, it stands to reason that solar levels were lower" ... in other words, an assumption. I have found nothing in my reference materials to suggest anything more.
Your understanding is lacking. Do your reference materials include stellar evolution and how it relates to irradiance?

Are you going to sit there and, with a straight face, tell me that 50 million years ago, or even 100 million years ago solar radiance was significantly less? Seriously?



In relation to co2 and it's influence on climate I present this paper.
Does your reference material include changes in cosmic ray flux in the past century? What does that data say about it? Here's some research which addresses it:

We conclude that cosmic rays and solar activity which we have examined here, in some depth, therefore cannot be a very significant underestimated contributor to the global warming seen in the twentieth century.

iopscience.iop.org...


I am still digesting this, but there are issues with their conclusions. Before I present anything I want to pursue this further and in depth, if possible and as time allows.





They have not predicted the increase of sea ice in Antarctica, nor did they predict the single year increase of sea ice (year to year, 2013-2014) in the Arctic.
Right. Climate models are not concerned with short term occurrences. They deal with multi-decadal trends.


The antarctica sea ice growth is a multi decadal trend. As is the significantly lower rate of increase in GW.
BTW...you are aware that the IPCC made predictions that covered the short term, right? Those predictions ... were not correct. It is rather simple to jump back to predictions made by the IPCC during the 90s about the early 21st century.
edit on 2-2-2015 by bbracken677 because: oops... missed a [ quote ] or 2

edit on 2-2-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Kali74

And I did not say that man has not contributed anything either. It is clear and undeniable that he has.


Yeah right, in the last thread you asserted the contribution was 0.25%:


Oddly, man is blamed for the increase in co2, and yet man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is a whopping 0.25%. Yes, one quarter of one percent.


Backpedal much?


Odd definition of backpedal. You are talking about co2 levels....and reference my comment about man's contribution to the GHE. I fail to see the issue. In both threads I identified man's contribution to co2 levels at roughly 37-40 billion tons in relation to nature's contribution of 770 billion tons. Since I clearly state what man produces how in the frack can you interpret my statement (any) as claiming man has not contributed? Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. By definition if man is producing approx 5% of the total co2 yearly then....man is contributing.

Stop flailing, please. I have changed nothing with regards to my assertions.

Address my posts, stop with the personal attacks (referencing the previous thread) and just debate the science.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Serious question.

What do you call it when you focus on one small detail that may or may not be in error, instead of focusing on the bigger picture? I see that a lot in these debates, as well as other conspiracy theories etc.

What are the benefits and pitfalls of this tactic? If we focus too much on Mann for one example. Does that help with the debate or get us to truth or does that derail us and waste our time?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677



This is not a liberal vs conservative question, or it should not be.


Absolutely correct, it shouldn't be... but it is.



Are you saying that we should NOT question the science behind AGW?


No.



Particularly when govt grant dollars are not awarded to those whose research does not support AGW.


Right wing think tank talking point, that is entirely a baseless claim.



Want to research climate data at a university? Try proposing anything that sounds even vaguely anti AGW and see how much support you get.


Want to research climate at all?



Keep in mind that the climate models are nothing more than hypotheses. You do know what an hypothesis is, right?


Ooo burn.

edit on 2/2/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I generally focus on historical geologic data and some extrapolation into modern times. You might notice that virtually all of my points incorporate some aspect of this. Simply for the reason it comes from the cat box I have played in over much of my career. Not my specialty, but definitely related.

I am not a physicist, not a climatologist, but I have reason and training as well as a reasonable amount of professional and life experience.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

No...at least on my part, it is about the science. People may attempt to make it political but that is just stupid.

Realistically, what makes AGW liberal and what makes anti AGW conservative? I fail to see the aspects that make this a political discussion.

Unless you want to claim it is intellect vs ignorance and that liberals are intellectual and conservatives are ignorants. LOL if you believe that then, no doubt, you MUST believe that all blacks like watermelon and fried chicken, no? If any of the above is true, then you must, by definition, turn in your liberal license. Everyone knows that liberals cannot be prejudiced and have open minds, right? If you are a conservative then I really don't get it lol




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Don't stretch too hard now.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I am not stretching in the least, thank you


And you will not see me constantly trying to turn this into a political discussion. That is pointless to the nth degree, not to mention just plain stupid.

Want to discuss economics and politics? Wrong forum, but I enjoy doing so on occasion. Start a thread if you wish and I will jump in occasionally. You might be surprised at my political views. Maybe not, after all: this is ATS



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Then my comment didn't apply to you to begin with, did it?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Cherry pick much??

You are certain he knows exactly how much Carbon humans have released, and since it does not add up to the 40% observed increase of CO2 over the past half century, you conclude that either the 40% is wrong or the excess CO2 must come from somewhere else.

Is it possible that may not know for certain how much CO2 that humans have released?

Instead it appears that you cherry-picked a study that suits your stance on the argument.

This is more of a look out the window sort of climate problem. We as a species no doubt release a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we have also observed a 40% increase in CO2 over the past half century.

I do not understand what you are trying debate here? Are you a Texas Oil man?



edit on 2-2-2015 by jrod because:




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bbracken677

Cherry pick much??

You are certain he knows exactly how much Carbon humans have released, and since it does not add up to the 40% observed increase of CO2 over the past half century, you conclude that either the 40% is wrong or the excess CO2 must come from somewhere else.


What the hell are you talking about?



Is it possible that may not know for certain how much CO2 that humans have released?

Instead it appears that you cherry-picked a study that suits your stance on the argument.

This is more of a look out the window sort of climate problem. We as a species no doubt release a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we have also observed a 40% increase in CO2 over the past half century.

I do not understand what you are trying debate here? Are you a Texas Oil man?




I think you are confusing me with someone else. I do live in Texas, moved here a few years ago, because my grandkids are here. I have no relationship with oil, oil industries, oil processes other than I drive a car that burns gasoline.

Correlation does not equal causation.

My first marriage was in the mid 70s. We divorced late 90s.
During the mid 70s, global temps experienced a significant increase that continued on until the late 90s when the rate of increase significantly dropped.
I suppose my marriage was responsible for the period of increased temperatures from the mid 70s to the late 90s.

Are you aware that the earth's magnetic field has decreased in strength by 15% over the last 150 years? I am quite sure that there is zero effect on our environment and climate (sarc). And apparently since the decline began at the start of industrialization then man is responsible for that as well.

What study are you referring to? The one that concludes that cosmic rays may have more to do with glacial/interglacial boundaries than co2 or milankovitch cycles? Seriously? Did you even freaking read it?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I cant see how it could have been, but it was a reply to me, so.......



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Phage

Sorry Phage, I've been invited to go away, but still enjoying arguing with you. Believe what you want, but even if you have it true that CO2 will trap heat, I believe that the Earth water cycle produce NEGATIVE feedback and will regulate the temperature accordingly.


Why do you know better than the climate modelers who have been doing this for their lifetimes?

A "belief"?

Why isn't it working with the oceans?

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

And why didn't it work in the ice ages? Why didn't the assumed 'negative feedback' go away and raise the temperature back up?



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join