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: ElectricUniverse
You first claim those who disagree with AGW are ignorant, and then imply that those who agree with AGW are laymen who are easily misled and don't need to understand the science behind climate change...
I just...wow... just don't have words anymore...
originally posted by: JameSimon
Above top secret logic:
1 million people agree: conspiracy
1 person disagrees: Must be telling the truth
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Nope, you pretty much are still on the wrong track here... Though, I imagine it is probably intentional, because if you were to actually attempt to understand the parallel that I'm trying to make you wouldn't be able to be so smug about your position.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Your hypothesis rests on the claim that Climategate is real. It wasn't. You should really attempt to understand that.
Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
...
The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet's stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.
The cause of the variable distribution of heat beneath the glacier is thought to be the movement of magma and associated volcanic activity arising from the rifting of the Earth's crust beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
...
The findings of lead author Dusty Schroeder and his colleagues show that the glacier sits on something more like a multi-burner stovetop with burners putting out heat at different levels at different locations.
...
The collapse of the Thwaites Glacier would cause an increase of global sea level of between 1 and 2 meters, with the potential for more than twice that from the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
...
According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth's continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter.
...
Abstract
The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10??C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost. A search for gas venting on the Arctic seafloor focused on pingo-like-features (PLFs) on the Beaufort Sea Shelf because they may be a direct consequence of gas hydrate decomposition at depth. Vibracores collected from eight PLFs had systematically elevated methane concentrations. ROV observations revealed streams of methane-rich gas bubbles coming from the crests of PLFs. We offer a scenario of how PLFs may be growing offshore as a result of gas pressure associated with gas hydrate decomposition. Copyright 2007 by the American Geophysical Union.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol, the comparison of salaries of scientists in favor of AGW are FAR less than the salaries of the ones paid by oil companies. That is a fact you can't argue around. Oh yea. Look at this.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC. The work of the IPCC is guided by a set of principles and procedures.
Voluntary? None of them are paid? WHAAAAAT!
...
Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.
...
This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.
Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
...
...
46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC
1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."
6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."
8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."
10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."
15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
17. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."
18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful."
19. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
20. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
...
Memorandum by Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris
THE IPCC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION. EXAMPLE: IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
...
12. The scientific literature on mosquito-borne diseases is voluminous, yet the text references in the chapter were restricted to a handful of articles, many of them relatively obscure, and nearly all suggesting an increase in prevalence of disease in a warmer climate. The paucity of information was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
...
Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 5, 2012
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) are focusing on population control through their Global Health Development Programs. By using citizens in under-developed nations, like Africa and India, was Guinea pigs for their research and development for “new interventions such as vaccines, drugs and diagnostics”, these globalists hope to ensure their family planning schemes are effective.
Melinda Gates has made family planning and the population control agenda her personal mission . She justifies her cause by claiming that 100,000 women die in child birth from unintended pregnancies. Although this statistic has no scientific basis, since it sounds good and mainstream media do not check facts, it has helped the BMGF team up with the British government to raise more than $4 billion to fun depopulation programs under the guise of bringing contraceptives to under-developed nations.
The BMGF assert that by 2050 “the global population is expected to grow to over 9 billion people” and this is unacceptable to them. By applying pressure to social programs and resources, the BMGF want to use family planning as an investment for all national governments globally.
Strategies to accomplish their goals include:
Using financial influence to force governments and policymakers to implement their family planning schemes
Empower NGOs who promote family planning propaganda
Coerce the integration of family planning into all “humanitarian” efforts by using funds from the UN Global Fund
Pour money into efforts that further family planning through national policy controls that adhere to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals
BMGF has partnered with drug corporations like Shanghai Dahua Pharmaceuticals in China to develop implantable fertility controls that will be used in over 20 developing countries to curb population growth.
The injectable Depo-Provera is being sold to under-developed nations and being administered by healthcare workers and nonmedical providers, or by the women themselves. Policy and training systems are underway to ensure these drugs are utilized in areas like the sub-Saharan Africa. By using these areas as testing grounds for new fertility drugs, as well as well as forcible sterilization schemes, the BMGF are focusing on preventative situations over dealing with abortable pregnancies which become complicated.
...
...
We agree that social norms are important, but social norms and values shift in complicated and often unexpected
ways (Ehrlich and Levin 2005) and respond to myriad forces at both lower and higher levels of social organization
(Ostrom et al. 2002). If no tipping point is reached, a minority of the population potentially shoulders the burdens of proenvironment behavior; moreover, their efforts alone are unlikely to have a sufficient impact on the types of emerging environmental challenges that the world faces. Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems.
Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion alone are insufficient.
Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant behavior modification (Carlson 2001, House of Lords 2011).
Policies apply to everyone in a particular jurisdiction and, as a result, ensure that the burdens of proenvironment behavior are widely shared, which increases the probability of measurable positive outcomes.
...
All that matters it the objective evidence for or against the hypothesis/theory.
It is just a theory yet it is treated as if it is a absolute.
originally posted by: jrod
Roy Spencer is not a credible source of information. I'm pretty sure he's bankrolled by the Heartland Institute...
Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist,[1] Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.[2][3] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.[2][3]
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award
...
originally posted by: jrod
You do not seem to get the concept if balance with the climate and NO ONE is suggesting CO2 is not vital and our respirations need to be taxed. That is you being a drama queen and pulling arguments from your hindside.
(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit
Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."
Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
...
originally posted by: jrod
What we are observing us a sharp increase if CO2 levels as direct result from our addiction to fossil fuels. This has very smart people who study this stuff concerned because it is changing the balance of our atmosphere's chemistry.
originally posted by: jrod
PS,
The BP spill was in the Gulf of Mexico
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This sentence doesn't make any sense. AGW is treated the same as any other theory. A theory is the HIGHEST level of accuracy a scientific idea can achieve. Though no one treats it as absolute. That is a fallacy.
First, once again you seem not to understand that even mankind emissions are not that big, and the natural emissions are much more than mankind could ever emit.
You again fail to understand that in the "Troposphere" water vapor accounts for around 97% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 accounts for around 5%.
NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special
Press Release From: KUSI-TV
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010
...
In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at icecap.us...
The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.
...
Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government
Written by John O'Sullivan on 19 Jan 2014
A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.
Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.
Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.
Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.
Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."
...
Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere
Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy
The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Name me the last theory that was proved wrong. Give me the year it happened. And don't say Climate Change.
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Here is one...
A few more...
Maybe more...
Oh Hell...here is Google
originally posted by: jrod
You are so silly.
originally posted by: jrod
I'm right about this, mbkennel is right but you try to tell this board we don't understand the science.
originally posted by: jrod
You just don't give up, despite the reality that your claims have been shot down by the actual science.
I actually threw you a bone with CO2's residence time, something months ago you were clueless about. Because most CO2 bounces from the ocean to the atmosphere it has a deceptively short RT. When one accounts for the ocean interaction we find that CO2 stays around for a very long time.