It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: amazing
But you have a letter by around 50 people.
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
Some names on that list aren't even actual people:
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Meanwhile... both 'sides' of our two-front war make up their own lists and studys to sway constantly the opinion of some insecure folks. A very tough ride to finally lay hands on some decent info.
Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: amazing
You are confusing climate change and catastrophic (fast) climate change. Yes, the consensus is we are warming and that man contributes, I am not contesting that nor is the paper you read. However, the consensus is NOT that we are changing so catastrophically fast that we can't adapt or improve our situation before it is too late.
The residence time equation is straightforwardly: R = M/S, where R is the residence time, M is the total mass of whatever you're measuring inside the system, and S is the removal rate. The equation can be modifed to include a time-constant. The IPCC in AR4 give figures for natural CO2 absorption of 788Gts and the atmospheric CO2 mass is about 3,000, so the residence time is 3000/788 = 3.8 years. The residence time is largely irrelevant however when determining how quickly a pulse concentration of CO2 will return the system to equilibrium, otherwise known as the 'adjustment time' or 'e-fold time'. That's a more complex calculation and the IPCC apply the Bern model equation from Joos et al 2001 for that. I am currently working on quite a big blog-post on this subject and trying to get your head around all the physcial mechanisms for the different time-constants in the Bern model is like being led on a phantasmagorical trip around the universe. I understand the main reasons though. But yeah, I digress, the residence time is very short, and the IPCC even admits this.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko
I would be happy to see a residence calculation for H20 or anything at this point. I asked for this because you claim to hold a masters in Atmospheric Science and showing a good residence time calculation will only give your claim of holding said degree some weight. It has been months or longer since I first ask if you could provide one.
Personally myself, I have no beef with the claim that 97% of scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but from my investigations a lot of these studies avoid quantifying the effect. That is to say that the 97% consensus in a lot of studies includes no quantification of AGW and instead includes esoteric questions like "Do you think AGW is significant?". One or two studies I have seen do quantify the effect, but only to a degree of over 50%.
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: mc_squaredSuppose 97% of professional aeronautical engineers and astronauts decided, with decades of backing from university and NASA peer reviewed scientists, that a common form of spacecraft design was dangerous to property and people.What would happen if the head of NASA took them seriously?