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.
Originally posted by Long Lance
enough is enough.
it's misleading to paint doomsday scenarios without foundation, while constantlay ignoring evidence of warmer climate in the past. it's misleading to use fuzzy graphs of CO2 and heat indicators of past climate to scare people, which, upon closer scrutiny show that temperature is actually leading, therefore the cause, not an effect.
just a simple question without much room for evasion: is it true that surface temperatures have remained stagnant, as the article states, or not?
btw, i'm still waiting for your answers on the increase of ice area on the southern poles and remnants of forests below glaciers in the Alps.
considering all these points and my experience with you so far, i conclude that a) you'r er.....misleading on purpose b) you're not citing the real reasons for your engagement in global warming or climate change debate (which i presume to be purely political in nature) and c) you could not care less about climate.
Originally posted by melatonin
just a simple question without much room for evasion: is it true that surface temperatures have remained stagnant, as the article states, or not?
Only if you pick one particular set of data, then decide that we should focus on everything after 1998, ignore long-term trends and the fact 1998 was a year with a substantial El Nino. Although, he does think El Nino is important for the incorrect satellite data he uses, guess it only applies when Carter wants it to. He's either clueless or dishonest, you decide.
NASA-GISS data.
You basically just want people to parrot a comforting line for you. Sorry, sometimes the data gets in the way.
...
I remember answering the glacier thing, as I said last time, I live near a ex-glacial valley, if we do enter a new ice-age, I expect it to develop a new glacier with a bedding of trees. I don't really see why you think this is something important. Glaciers come and go, climate does change naturally, but that has absolutely no impact on the mechanisms that are driving current climate, anthropogenic and natural.
If I have misled you, maybe you could point it out.
Originally posted by Long Lance
good, so you say the satellite's orbital changes skew data and that 1998's El Nino has to be considered. since the article only mentions it and does not provide any real data, your explanation is plausible. 'stagnant' can mean many things to many people.
it's not about a comforting line, it's about inherent goals. i know that merely debating climate is innocous on the face of it, that's not the point. the problem afaics, is that many so called solutions already tend to make things worse. i know that's not your specialty, though.
yes, fine but don't you think that large, natural variations in the past essentially prove that the biosphere (as long as it remains at least somewhat intact) is perfectly able to sustain higher overall temperatures? i'd like to point out that, under the circumstances (large variations in the past), loss of ice mass alone cannot be construed as clear signs of human intervention.
i don't feel mislead in the least, and tbh, i originally intended to use a different word, which i elected to replace before posting.
but since you asked, what if a 56k user finds
www.abovetopsecret.com...
he's unable to d/l the video within a reasonable timeframe, now imagine Loam's last post didn't exist. don't you think that would slightly overvalue an argument, which in its essence, says that you can ban/object to anything as long as the inferred threat is overwhelming enough.
PS: i still don't get how a lagging factor can cause anything in the past, but perhaps it's just me. kind of hard to ascertain with so few regular posters.
Originally posted by Deharg
I am sure you know what I am referring too I am sorry for being off topic ..
Originally posted by Deharg
Sorry Melatonin can't resist but I can think of many things all pleasurable that lead to the release of oxytocin...
I am sure you know what I am referring too I am sorry for being off topic ..
Originally posted by Muaddib
The warming of the surface of the Earth is caused mainly by what happens in the troposphere, and water vapor contributes at least 95% of the warming in the troposphere.
For clear skies, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for 60% of the total. The second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m-2 in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) but differing from Kandel’s (1993) estimate of 50 W m-2. The results in the column for combined effects were obtained by splitting the overlap effects among the gases. This is approximate but enables us to arrive at representative percent contributions for each absorber. Because there is strong overlap between clouds and water vapor, the radiative forcing of water vapor is significantly different (22 W m-2) between clear and cloudy conditions.
The longwave radiative forcing by other gases is less affected by the presence of clouds, but cloud influence is still important since the total radiative forcing for clear and cloudy conditions differs by 39 W m-2, a value that is as large as the longwave cloud forcing. Thus, clouds have a direct effect on the longwave flux escaping to space due to their absorption and emission, and they have an indirect effect on the flux by shielding absorption and emission by gases (mainly water vapor). Our cloudy radiative forcing calculations are in good agreement with the results of Ramanathan and Coakley (1978), who also provided results for cloudy conditions.
Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, peer-review is far from perfect, however, it is a necessary but not sufficient quality control. A lot of crap makes it through, a lot of good stuff takes time to make it through. Such is life. Good ideas and data will prevail though.
Sorry, no cookie for you
[edit on 21-6-2007 by melatonin]
Originally posted by TheAvenger
I'm a simple environmental chemist working 50 hours a week to earn a living, not an environmental activist with no other work on my plate. [/url]
Originally posted by melatonin
Do any of them have the 95% figure for water vapour?
Originally posted by TheAvenger
Looking back over the thread I see that your 95% question was actually directed at Muaddib. I didn't mean to hijack the exchange with my comment about peer-review. I apologize for that, and I need to give Muaddib his opportunity to respond to you without my interference.