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.
We don't know what caused MWP?
How far above the highest MWP estimate are we now?
What proportion of the current temperature increase is ascribed to anthropogenic sources?
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Kali74
I guess the biggest question I have relates to cause and effect. Logically it is clear that Cause must follow Effect. But the situation we seem to have here is that if carbon dioxide is the cause of the tempurature increase, why are they rising together?
Historically, carbon dioxide increases and temperature increases have followed one another by 100s if not thousands of years. The industrial age is 100 maybe 200 years if you count the use of pure coal to heat victorian homes. It just seem reasonable for the effect to rise in lock step with the cause.
Tired of Control Freaks
The most prominent feature of the record is a period of elevated summer temperatures from 1200-1375 AD, followed by cooler conditions from 1375-1820 AD, coincident with the Little Ice Age.
The United States and China have unveiled a secretly negotiated deal to reduce their greenhouse gas output, with China agreeing to cap emissions for the first time and the US committing to deep reductions by 2025.
The pledges in an agreement struck between President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jingping, provide an important boost to international efforts to reach a global deal on reducing emissions beyond 2020 at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year.
China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, has agreed to cap its output by 2030 or earlier if possible. Previously China had only ever pledged to reduce the rapid rate of growth in its emissions. Now it has also promised to increase its use of energy from zero-emission sources to 20% by 2030.
The United States has pledged to cut its emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
The European Union has already endorsed a binding 40% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2030.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod
why is not ok for Dr. Lindzen's work to be funded by ExxonMobile but its ok for Jim Hansens work to be funded by Soros?
originally posted by: Greven
Do you know what that forecast was?
CO2: we would have at least ~354 CO2 ppm by 2000, but possibly as much as ~440 CO2 ppm.
RESULT: We hit 368 CO2 ppm in 1999, so it was within the forecast range nearer the low estimate.
He is chairman of Soros Fund Management. He is known as "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England" because of his short sale of US$10 billion worth of pounds, making him a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis. Soros is one of the 30 richest people in the world.
. . .
Insider trading conviction
. . .
In 1989 the Commission des Opérations de Bourse (COB—the French stock exchange regulatory authority) conducted an investigation of whether Soros's transaction in Société Générale should be considered insider trading. Soros had received no information from the Société Générale and had no insider knowledge of the business, but he did possess knowledge that a group of investors was planning a takeover attempt. The COB concluded that the statutes, regulations, and case law relating to insider trading did not clearly establish that a crime had occurred and that no charges should be brought against Soros.
Several years later, a Paris-based prosecutor reopened the case against Soros and two other French businessmen, disregarding the COB's findings. This resulted in Soros's 2005 conviction for insider trading by the Court of Appeals (he was the only one of the three to receive a conviction). The French Supreme Court confirmed the conviction on June 14, 2006, but reduced the penalty to €940,000.
Punitive damages were not sought because of the delay in bringing the case to trial. Soros denied any wrongdoing, saying news of the takeover was public knowledge and it was documented that his intent to acquire shares of the company predated his own awareness of the takeover.
His insider-trading conviction was upheld by the highest court in France on June 14, 2006. In December 2006 he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on various grounds including that the 14-year delay in bringing the case to trial precluded a fair hearing. On the basis of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that no person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offense at the time that it was committed, the court agreed to hear the appeal. In October 2011 the court rejected his appeal in a 4–3 decision, saying that Soros had been aware of the risk of breaking insider trading laws.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
I don't care if what you wrote is true, what does it have to do with climate science?
And what is wrong with Soros? Everybody seems to slag on him and I've never once seen a concrete, factual, reason why. As far as I can tell, his "crime" was that he was a wealthy man who was against GWB in 2004 (like 47% of voters) instead of in 2006 when everybody slagged on Bush.
After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do. George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"
This kind of mind-blowing malfeasance would get them fired and probably escorted out of the building by security at many engineering companies.
Satellites cover almost the entire planet several times a day, and they showed that October had only the 25th highest monthly anomaly, and that the first ten months of 1998 all had a higher anomaly than October 2015.
By tampering with the station baseline, they created the large anomalies. Then they double down their fraud by smearing their bogus anomalies across 1200 km of missing data. This is needed to create their required fraudulent record temperature claims ahead of Paris.
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) opened another front in his war with federal climate researchers on Wednesday, saying a groundbreaking global warming study was “rushed to publication” over the objections of numerous scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
there are only temperature stations covering about 40% of the global land mass since the end of the cold war when the defunct USSR abandoned some 10000 stations. NASA and NOAA use this same station data. Also note that this only represents 12% on the total Earth surface. So they extrapolate 12% of the Earth’s surface temps to cover the remaining 88%. AND fudge the numbers before doing that. Meanwhile the satellite record captures the entire surface and shows no such warming.
"Narendra Modi said he wanted an agreement in Paris and that India shared without ambiguity the 2 degree goal" the French source said.
The aim of limiting average global warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial times was agreed in 2010 in Mexico.
It was reaffirmed at meeting of G20 leaders in mid-November but only after tough discussions as France and other European countries lobbied for its insertion in the final G20 statement.
The upshot is that the U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere near as quickly as India is adding them. By the end of this year, some 7.5 percent of the U.S. coal fleet will have disappeared, casualties of low natural gas prices, old age, and new regulations. That's a lot. But by 2020, India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity as the U.S. is about to lose.