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: 7
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
In relation to co2 and it's influence on climate I present this paper.



SUMMARY
It has been shown above that low altitude cloud cover closely follows cosmic ray flux; that the galactic cosmic ray flux has the periodicities of the glacial/interglacial cycles; that a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux was coincident with Termination II; and that the most likely initiator for Termination II was a consequent decrease in Earth’s albedo.
The temperature of past interglacials was higher than today most likely as a consequence of a lower global albedo due to a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the galactic cosmic ray intensity exhibits a 100 kyr periodicity over the last 200 kyr that is in phase with the glacial terminations of this period. Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.


arxiv.org...

In a nutshell, my own personal summary is as follows:

Given that the hypotheses, as presented by the IPCC and others, in the form of climate modeling is insufficient and has consistently failed to predict or support the claims as presented vs observable phenomena... Given that climatologists understand that climate is extremely complicated to the degree that their models are not capable of accurately predicting observable phenomena..... Any claims regarding the next 100 years and climate are misleading and most assuredly erroneous. They have not accurately predicted global temperature rise (regardless of how much data is "manipulated" or not) of the last couple of decades with relationship to co2 levels. 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. I do not present any reason for these, I merely point out that those who are making doom claims regarding climate change are still getting it wrong. Therefore the logical conclusion is they are speaking out of an orifice existing in their nether region.




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I am just saying: show me the irrefutale facts. I understand that man has been producing, recently, in the neighborhood of 40 billion tons of atmospheric carbon a year. I also understand that natural sources of atmospheric carbon are estimated to be in the area of 770 billion tons.

Consider the oceanic and surface co2 sinks... are they not capable of handling the additional 5%? What is the result of increased atmospheric co2? Greater bio mass and an increase in co2 useage by the existing co2 sinks?

Given the enhanced albedo of water vapor, and that water vapor is often disparagingly referred to as "just a feedback mechanism" does it not also stand to reason that increase co2 would also result in increased albedo?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

What other cause? Perhaps the firmly established fact that as oceans warm, they release co2. We are, after all, in an interglacial period. We have not hit a point where global cooling has kicked in, so global warming is to be expected and has been the overall trend since the last period of maximum glaciation.

Perhaps the 15% decrease in the strength of our magnetosphere over the last roughly 150 years has contributed to the warming period...in fact, there is every reason to believe it has contributed greatly.

Solar levels were lower? You do not understand Milankovitch cycles. The maximum decrease of solar influence is estimated to be roughly 1.5% due to fluctuations in the Milankovitch cycles. What you are, apparently, implying is that a difference of 1.5% in solar activity/level is sufficient to counter co2 levels at 4800ppm. Are you sure you want to go there?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

I didn't say it was alone responsible and posted another major factor.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
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?



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?



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...




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.

edit on 2/1/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bbracken677
When you say "reflect heat" do you mean re-emit infrared radiation? Because heat, which is molecular movement, is not "reflected". The "reflection" of infrared is not glossed over, it is the primary factor in determining radiative forcing for greenhouse gasses.


To be fair, infrared radiation can be reflected, by tinfoil for example. So maybe these skeptics are saying global warming is a hoax because the Earth is covered in tinfoil? (much like their hats)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared
Infrared radiation is not heat.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

And I did not say that man has not contributed anything either. It is clear and undeniable that he has. The question is: how much and exactly how much of an effect has his contribution had?

My point is that all the climate change/global warming of the last 150 years or so are being dumped at man's feet. Very disengenuous.

My point is that the predictions that are being made are very facile and are being proven in the short term false. By definition this means...what?

You say that conditions were in balance to support life as we know it to evolve...only if life as we know it evolved in the last 450k years or so. If you look back millions, to describe "life as we know it evolving" then you see higher temperatures and higher levels of co2, no? Conditions have never been "balanced". They have always been in a state of change.

When has man been at greatest risk? Not during warmth and elevated co2 levels, but rather during glaciation and much lower co2 levels. I cry BS at all the climate change BS.

What is the result of higher temps and co2 levels? (within reason of course...within what we should expect given the last 100 million years or so) The answer to that is a wetter environment which is actually more conducive to life and diversity. Will regions suffer because they get wetter or drier? From man's perspective (who absolutely, as a species, hates change) we will see some problems, but at the same time there will be regions which will benefit.

However, I would like to stress that the previous paragraph is, by no means, guaranteed. We are about at the point, geologically speaking, at which we should be expecting global cooling to kick in. Bear in mind, I am not talking about tomorrow or next year or even 10 years from now. Even though those are possibilities, the likelihood is more along the lines of hundreds or even a few thousand years before global cooling kicks in.

Oddly, from my own studies of Milankovitch cycles, it appears we are hitting a unique period not seen in the last 400k years. This does not eliminate out the cosmic ray relationship to the glacial cycles.... it is quite possible that we will see a return to glaciation regardless of Milankovitch cycles if the research I posted earlier is accurate.

I find it a bit odd that people are all bent about warming, when it is cooling that will be the killer. If global warming kicks in again with a vengeance it will be inconvenient, but man will not suffer millions or billions of deaths. Cannot say the same if global cooling commences.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I was just tryin to lighten the mood Phage


Although in one of his last posts he did write this:


does it not also stand to reason that increase co2 would also result in increased albedo?


Showing a severe lack of understanding in how the greenhouse effect even works.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
the koch brothers hired a climate change "skeptic" to testify in congress under oath that climate change was not the reult of human acitvity, or even happening at all. He was a real scientist.

(Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director)

The argument was that the bad scientists had a pre-conceived idea, so they were fudging the data to make it fit. They also had bad sensors in bad positions like next to buildings where they were exposed to reflected light.

funny thing happened when he testified under oath in front of congress after being hire by oil men to say the bad scientists were fudging the data

he concluded that not only was climate change real, but it was certainly being effected by human activity in a significant way

he did a massive random numbers crunch on the data to eliminate bias, and eliminated poor sensors all together, and outliers I believe but I'm not 100% sure on that

Anyone really interested in this topic should read the paper


berkely earth science project



Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, notes “Much to my surprise, by far the best
match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in
polar ice.” He emphasizes that the match between the data and the theory doesn’t prove that carbon dioxide is
responsible for the warming, but the good fit makes it the strongest contender. “To be considered seriously, any
alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide.”
In its 2007 report the IPCC concluded only that “most” of the warming of the past 50 years could be attributed to
humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC, that increased solar activity could have contributed to warming
prior to 1956. Berkeley Earth analyzed about 5 times more station records than were used in previous analyses,
and this expanded data base along with its new statistical approach allowed Berkeley Earth to go about 100 years
farther back in time than previous studies. By doing so, the Berkeley Earth team was able to conclude that over
250 years, the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible.
Some of the scientists on the Berkeley Earth team admit surprise that the new analysis has shown such clear
agreement between global land-temperature rise and human-caused greenhouse gases. “I was not expecting
this,” says Richard Muller, “but as a scientist, I feel it is my duty to let the evidence change my mind.”



article about the testimony

apologies if my formatting is lame, I don't do the fancy stuff often



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
The manipulation goes on......We are mere prawns ......


And people choose to see what they want to see.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
As the topic of this thread is temperature measuring stations, here is a good exemple of a "nice" location:

How do we know global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the U.S. temperature record?

Anf this link is of interest:

Surfacestations.org



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly

That, in part, is why raw data is not used.

You know that satellite data is used, right? You know it supports the data from ground stations, right?
en.wikipedia.org.../File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

But to clarify; are you saying that global temperatures may not have increased over the past 75 years? Try looking up record temperature records. You'll find that there are far more all time high temperature records being set than all time low temperature records. That would seem to indicate that something is changing, and not in a cooling direction.

edit on 2/1/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And let me guess, those satellite sensor are probably calibrated using those ground thermometer...



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly

Guess again.
Or you could read the link. It has to with with that emissivity you were talking about earlier.


edit on 2/1/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Maybe a better word for it would be "adjusted"...



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677


In relation to co2 and it's influence on climate I present this paper.


arxiv.org...

Can you also please show us where this paper has actually been published and passed peer review? Just because it’s on arXiv doesn’t mean it’s been peer-reviewed, and I can’t find a journal reference anywhere.

I ask because I just took a read through myself and found several dubious claims. For example this:


There is another compelling argument that can be given to support this hypothesis. Sime, et al. have found that past interglacial climates were much warmer than previously thought. Their analysis of the data shows that the maximum interglacial temperatures over the past 340 kyr were between 6 C and 10 C above present day values. From Fig. 1, it can be seen that past interglacial carbon dioxide concentrations were not higher than that of the current interglacial, and therefore carbon dioxide could not have been responsible for this warming. In fact, the concentration of carbon dioxide that would be needed to produce a 6-10 C rise in temperature above present day values exceeds the maximum (1000 p.p.m.v.)


This is a huge misrepresentation of the Sime et al paper. The paper itself is paywalled, but here’s the press release that came with it: Press Release - Mysteriously warm times in Antarctica


The latest analysis of ice core records suggests that Antarctic temperatures may have been up to 6°C warmer than the present day.


That’s Antarctic temperatures up to 6 C, not global temperatures between 6-10 C. Furthermore here’s what else they have to say:


This suggests Antarctic temperature shows a high level of sensitivity to greenhouse gases at levels similar to those found today.


The authors themselves (this press release came directly from them) are using the study to argue for high climate sensitivity. Yet the author of your paper tries to twist their research completely around to suggest pretty much the opposite.

So please show us where your paper was actually peer-reviewed, because frankly it would have been eviscerated for pulling bush league crap like that.

This looks like another one of these so-called papers that gets published on denier blogs and nothing more.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: PeterMcFly

Guess again.
Or you could read the link. It has to with with that emissivity you were talking about earlier.


Careful now, if the satellite data uses unconventional units it might be too "mystifying".




top topics



 
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join