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.

 

There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
eeer...right, i forgot,.... melatonin/regenmacher always makes such claims when the evidence does not support his claims...

only if you excerpt from Mann et al does melatonin/regenmacher claims "that is real science"....


The title of the article speaks to what the paper focuses on. It focuses on solar radiation, that's the incoming stuff. The paper assesses how CO2 and water vapour absorb this incoming shorter wave radiation, particularly in the near-IR. And it is relevant to the way GCMs work.

The stuff being emitted from the surface is not considered solar radiation. For your sake, lets call it 'ex-solar' radiation. Might help with the confusion.

On the same page on the DOE site, it also has Ramanathan's calculations. Those numbers are the ones you want. That's the estimated % outgoing radiation trapped by GHGs.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


The paper you cited focuses on solar radiation.

I guess I should ask what the 16/106 reference is related to?



You lads are way too serious in these debates.


I certainly try not to be tooooo serious.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by melatonin]


Oops maybe I gave you the wrong paper. Sorry. I will have a look at it myself. I want to see if anyone else can tell me what 16/106 means. If not, I will post it on this thread in a week or so.





[edit on 6/23/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny



Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.



Personally I do not think that Gore will rise to the occasion because it would not serve his political goals.

This article really helps explain the issues with the tulipwalker agenda now doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
You do realise that this guy is showing blatent dishonesty?


For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

www.suntimes.com...

Do me a favour. Google the bolded phrase, find where that quote came from, because it certainly isn't from the article he is referring to.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Still doesn't address the point that when the data does not back Gore's agenda, he does not retract his 'misleading or false' statements. NOT ONCE has he done so.

And again, it is because it will not serve the 'tulipwalker' agenda that is being presented as dire facts.


Global warming is one thing that maybe we should all step back from our comfort zones and actually look at ALL the data before sentencing civilization to more taxes and laws that accomplish nothing.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by edsinger]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Still doesn't address the point that when the data does not back Gore's agenda, he does not retract his 'misleading or false' statements. NOT ONCE has he done so.

And again, it is because it will not serve the 'tulipwalker' agenda that is being presented as dire facts.


The article that this guy is using focuses on one small region that most wouldn't even view as really Himalayan, the vast majority of glaciers in the Himalayas are melting. Gore was correct.


The Himalayas (also Himalaya, IPA: [hɪ'mɑlijə], [ˌhɪmə'leɪjə]) are a mountain range in Asia, separating the Indian subcontinent from the Tibetan Plateau. By extension, it is also the name of the massive mountain system which includes the Himalaya proper, the Karakoram, the Hindu Kush, and a host of minor ranges extending from the Pamir Knot.

en.wikipedia.org...

But nice to know you can ignore complete dishonesty.

The worst you can say for Gore on this matter is lack of clarity of what the Himalayas actually consists of - the Himalayan 'proper' or the wider definition that includes the Karokoram and Hindu Kush.

I only watched the film the other day, I usually ignore such 'soft' science, why bother when I can read the true data? It wasn't bad, I think he overstated the Hurricane stuff, it's not clear what the data shows at this moment, there is no consensus on that issue, and that also includes claims by Landsea and Gray. On tornadoes, he makes no explicit claim that there is a link between climate change and tornadoes, it's more implicit. For the Kilimanjaro melting, there is no clear consensus about why it is melting, many suggestions - it might be influenced to some degree by GW, it might not. However, it is the fact that tropical glaciers, and others, are melting across the world that is more telling.


Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 30, No. 3, 285-306 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0309133306pp478ra
© 2006 SAGE Publications

The status of research on glaciers and global glacier recession: a review
Roger G. Barry
National Snow and Ice Data Center/WDC for Glaciology, Boulder; CIRES and Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0449, USA

Mountain glaciers are key indicators of climate change, although the climatic variables involved differ regionally and temporally. Nevertheless, there has been substantial glacier retreat since the Little Ice Age and this has accelerated over the last two to three decades. Documenting these changes is hampered by the paucity of observational data. This review outlines the measurements that are available, new techniques that incorporate remotely sensed data, and major findings around the world. The focus is on changes in glacier area, rather than estimates of mass balance and volume changes that address the role of glacier melt in global sea-level rise. The glacier observations needed for global climate monitoring are also outlined.


In the main, he did OK for a non-scientist.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
What based on the lies of Ann Coulter! Don't come looking in my pantry when the world sources of food fail. It's not Al gore or Fox news you should be paying attention to but the scientists that are looking at the real causes and effects.

Man is destined to die in his own s*** due to denial. When castles were made of stone they thought that little wooden trebuchet would be no more than a nuisance but then the walls started falling things changed. Some leaders of this country thought we were safe until 911, they are still trying to perpetrate that false belief today. We all face certain dangers, We can only look out for ourselves and help those around us. If we don't make the effort now, we shall pay the consequences tomorrow or leave the burden on our children. Haven't we left then with a mounting debt and screwed up health and human services system already along with making the world more angry.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
So your saying its final - global warming is caused by man.


I do not believe it as of yet, too many unanswered questions and slanted data. Again, how the hell did they grow olives in Germany in the middle ages long before the industrial revolution? What are the chances that it is 90% or greater caused by SOLAR activity?? I mean I sure as hell will not blame the martian ice caps melting on SUV's and Coal fired power plants!



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
So your saying its final - global warming is caused by man.


por moi?

The scientific evidence suggests that man is having a significant influence on the current period of climate change. Not the only cause, but an important one.



Again, how the hell did they grow olives in Germany in the middle ages long before the industrial revolution?


Because it was warm enough to do so?


What are the chances that it is 90% or greater caused by SOLAR activity??


Very unlikely. At most 25-35%, more likely much less.


I mean I sure as hell will not blame the martian ice caps melting on SUV's and Coal fired power plants!


Neither would I. Like the earth, It seems to be mainly due to local effects...

space.newscientist.com...




[edit on 3-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

por moi?

The scientific evidence suggests that man is having a significant influence on the current period of climate change. Not the only cause, but an important one.


Actually the scientific evidence is pointing to the fact that mankind is not having any significant influence on the current Climate Change...



Originally posted by melatonin

Very unlikely. At most 25-35%, more likely much less.


Oh right, I mean it is not like the Sun has done the same in the past now did it?...

I guess the Maunder Minimum during the Ice Ages which, wow it coincided with the Little Ice Age was a cincidence, or so melatonin would have us believe, and it was merely the people living in the Middle Ages which caused the Little Ice Age, or the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period....



Originally posted by melatonin
Neither would I. Like the earth, It seems to be mainly due to local effects...


Oh yeah right, just like Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn and pretty much every planet in the Solar System with an atmosphere which are all showing to be in a warming trend... The fact that the Sun's output and the sunspots have been increasing in the past few decades more than for a long while now also has no relevance according to melatonin/regenmacher , Mann et al....


Originally posted by melatonin
space.newscientist.com...


So i guess the fact that an increase in the Sun's activity does not mean an increase in convection in planets like Earth and an increase in the frequency and strength of winds which would cause "dust storms" as what is happening on Mars?....



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Be nice if you answered the outstanding post in the other thread before this one, Muaddib, you know, the one where you seemed to be unable to read the multiple abstracts I found for you.

Also, been over these arguments numerous times with you. For instance, there are 60 or so major bodies in this solar system. They can do one of three things - warm, cool, stay same. It's not surprising a few are warming, does not mean they are caused by the same phenomena. In fact, it is unlikely that solar activity can fully account for warming on mars, so that's one down.

Pluto receives something like a couple of order of magnitudes less solar irradiance than the earth, if the estimated 2'C warming was due to solar activity, we would sort of notice it...

Plus, solar activity has not been increasing for about 50 years. It has been pretty much stable since hitting a peak. But you know this already.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Hmm you seem to easily dismiss the possibility of the sun causing the 'warming' not just on Earth but also on Mars etc.

Well, in the middle ages it WAS warmer, so German grew olives. Its a good thing that there were no environuts at that time, heck none of the GW addicts will even begin to entertain the possibilities of the Earth warming could be a BOON to life?

Nah, lets just scare the uneducated and maybe we can hide some taxes in there to take money from those that have and redistribute it to those that don't, which in reality is what the liberal agenda claims but it is only a cover.

Hence the word Tulipwalker --- its befitting, it identifies, it labels, it educates and informs. I am a political correctness junkie you know.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
It's not a case of dismissing, it is a case of using scientific approaches to assess the solar contribution to current warming. The highest contribution found in the scientific literature is up to 35% (Scaffeta & West, 2006).

So no dismissal, just an acceptance that it does not seem to account completely for current warming.

As for the 'tulipwalker' stuff, whatever floats ya boat.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
and just to consolidate what we already know:


No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics
Quirin Schiermeier

Top of pageAbstractSun not to blame for global warming.

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation.

"This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming," says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

0-www.nature.com.unicat.bangor.ac.uk...

You will need a subscription of some sort to access the Nature news piece. You may be able to find reports elsewhere.

But I'm sure the septic 'sceptic' cranks will carry on regardless.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
So I would not argue that some scientists believe it is not a factor, but not ALL scientists do. Still, if the sun has very little play in it, explain why the Martian caps are melting also? There are no SUV's there the last I checked.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
So I would not argue that some scientists believe it is not a factor, but not ALL scientists do. Still, if the sun has very little play in it, explain why the Martian caps are melting also? There are no SUV's there the last I checked.


It doesn't matter what scientists believe per se, the evidence they have is more important.

As for the mars stuff, read the link I provided in an earlier post, it provides an explanation for the warming on mars.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Has anyone taken this into consideration?


Ancient Greenland Was Green
5 Jul, 2007


Eske Willerslev's study published today in Science overturns all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in ancient Greenland.

www.scitizen.com...
Eske Willerslev is a professor of evolutionary biology in the Department of Biology at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Has anyone taken this into consideration?


Doesn't really speak to the causes of current climate change.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Ancient Greenland Was Green
5 Jul, 2007


Eske Willerslev's study published today in Science overturns all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in ancient Greenland.

www.scitizen.com...
Eske Willerslev is a professor of evolutionary biology in the Department of Biology at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Yes.

That was during the Devonian period (if memory serves) and Iceland was part of a large continent called "Laurasia." At the time, it was much nearer the equator. And yes, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere then and therefore it was much warmer.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatoninIt doesn't matter what scientists believe per se, the evidence they have is more important.



Would that be only ones who support man made global warming?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join