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.

 

Manmade Climate Change: The pollution of science by politics and the road to world government

page: 6
73
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Fantastic posts sir.

I would also love to point out to the worshippers of AGW, who also claim they fully believe in evolution.

What makes you think this is not EVOLUTION HAPPENING




posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
It was not...
www.springerlink.com...

www.zum.de...

The claim that it wasn't a global event is also false.

The claim that climate and the weather these days are at a extreme never before seen by humans, occurring so fast is also false.

www.sciencedirect.com

www.diva-portal.org...

Seems like you're just copy & pasting stuff yet again. Also a number of your links are flat-out broken.
You know that first link was published in 1994, right?

Further, I didn't say anything about volcanoes, whether MWP was global, or about extreme weather. You're just reusing links from ages ago - heck, the newest one looks to be 2009 and most are before 2003. I've seen them before. I'm sure most of us have. Spamming yet another thread with them ain't impressing anyone who seriously cares about this topic.

Go have a look at that broken link: The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. You'll see some interesting figures on page 123 and 124. Remember also that that was more than 15 years ago, and last year was 0.5°C greater than the apparent end date of that 2000 article, which was 1996.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Fantastic posts sir.

I would also love to point out to the worshippers of AGW, who also claim they fully believe in evolution.

What makes you think this is not EVOLUTION HAPPENING


What makes you think that it is? Fail to see how the two are connected since evolution would be about how we adapt to it. And we don't really have the time for that, evolution is not fast.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


Excuse me, but you and the rest of the AGWarmers are using a theory postulated by Svante Arrhenius in 1896... That CO2 causes massive warming... When observation says otherwise...



I presented evidence from different research articles that show the Medieval Warm Period was a global event, and was hotter than even the present... Just because those articles were published in the 90s, or 2000s does not deny the truth of the information contained therein such research papers...

You need to formulate a real intelligent and concise argument instead of trying to dismiss the evidence by just claiming they are old...



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

But here... another research paper published in December 2013...


Ecological tree line history and palaeoclimate – review of megafossil evidence from the Swedish Scandes

Leif Kullman

Article first published online: 2 JAN 2013

DOI: 10.1111/bor.12003

© 2012 The Author. Boreas © 2012 The Boreas Collegium

The postglacial tree line and climate history in the Swedish Scandes have been inferred from megafossil tree remains. Investigated species are mountain birch (Betula pubescens ssp. czerepanovii), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and grey alder (Alnus incana). Betula and Pinus first appeared on early deglaciated nunataks during the Lateglacial. Their tree lines peaked between 9600 and 9000 cal. a BP, almost 600 m higher than present-day elevations. This implies (adjusted for land uplift) that early Holocene summer temperatures may have been 2.3°C above modern ones. Elevational tree line retreat characterized the Holocene tree line evolution. For short periods, excursions from this trend have occurred. Between c. 12 000 and 10 000 cal. a BP, a pine-dominated subalpine belt prevailed. A first major episode of descent occurred c. 8200 cal. a BP, possibly forced by cooling and an associated shift to a deeper and more persistent snow pack. Thereafter, the subalpine birch forest belt gradually evolved at the expense of the prior pine-dominated tree line ecotone. A second episode of pine descent took place c. 4800 cal. a BP. Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4800 years. Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods, c. 1900 and 1000 cal. a BP, respectively.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Here is one from 2015...


ISSN 1897-1695 (online), 1733-8387 (print) © 2015 J. Esper et al.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
-NonCommercial
-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

GEOCHRONOMETRIA 42 (2015): 53–59
DOI 10.1515/geochr-2015-0006

Available online at
www.degruyter.com...
LONG
-
TERM SUMMER TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS IN THE PYRENEES FROM DETRENDED STABLE CARBON ISOTOPES
JAN ESPER1, OLIVER KONTER1, PAUL J. KRUSIC2, MATTHIAS SAURER3, STEFFEN HOLZKÄMPER2 and ULF BÜNTGEN4, 5, 6

1Department of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University, 55099 Mainz, Germany
2Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
3Paul Scherrer Institut, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland
4Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
5Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Swit
zerland
6Global Change Research Centre AS CR, v.v.i., Bělidla 986/4a, CZ-60300 Brno, Czech Republic

Received 28 July 2014 Accepted 6 February 2015

Abstract:
Substantial effort has recently been put into the development of climate reconstructions from tree-ring stable carbon isotopes, though the interpretation of long-term trends retained in such timeseries remains challenging. Here we use detrended δ13C measurements in Pinus uncinata tree-rings, from the Spanish Pyrenees, to reconstruct decadal variations in summer temperature back to the 13thcentury.
The June-August temperature signal of this reconstruction is attributed using decadally as well as annually resolved, 20th century δ13C data. Results indicate that late 20th century warming has not been unique within the context of the past 750 years.
Our reconstruction contains greater am-plitude than previous reconstructions derived from traditional tree-ring density data, and describes particularly cool conditions during the late 19th century. Some of these differences, including early warm periods in the 14th and 17thcenturies, have been retained via δ13C timeseries detrending — a
novel approach in tree-ring stable isotope chronology development. The overall reduced variance in earlier studies
points to an underestimation of pre-instrumental summer temperature variability de-rived from traditional tree-ring parameters.

Keywords:Climate change, paleoclimatology, stable isotope geochemistry, tree-rings, Europe.

www.blogs.uni-mainz.de...



A 2000-Year SST History of the Northeastern Arabian Sea
Tweet Follow @co2science

Paper Reviewed
Munz, P.M., Siccha, M., Luckge, A., Boll, A., Kucera, M. and Schulz, H. 2015. Decadal-resolution record of winter monsoon intensity over the last two millennia from planktic foraminiferal assemblages in the northeastern Arabian Sea. The Holocene 25: 1756-1771.

Working with a pair of sediment cores obtained from the continental margin of the northeastern Arabian Sea just off the coast of Pakistan, Munz et al. (2015) identified the planktic foraminifera remains found at different depths within the cores, which allowed them to develop a continuous record of sea surface temperature (SST) there over the past 2000 years. And what did that record reveal?

The six scientists report that (1) prior to the year 100 CE (= 100 AD) -- which they say was contemporaneous with the end of the Roman Warm Period -- "winter temperatures were more than 1.5°C warmer than today," that (2) "from 100 to 450 CE, highly variable temperatures indicate a transition phase," that (3) "after 450 CE, winter temperatures are constantly lower," while (4) the "highest temperatures during this interval occurred around 950 CE concomitant with the Medieval Warm Period."

The significance of these observations lies primarily in the fact that they provide yet another demonstration of the existence of two multi-century periods of time -- the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods -- when the earth was significantly warmer than it is currently, and at times when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was significantly less than what it is today.
Posted 26 February 2016

www.co2science.org...



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Excuse me, but you and the rest of the AGWarmers are using a theory postulated by Svante Arrhenius in 1896... That CO2 causes massive warming... When observation says otherwise...



I presented evidence from different research articles that show the Medieval Warm Period was a global event, and was hotter than even the present... Just because those articles were published in the 90s, or 2000s does not deny the truth of the information contained therein such research papers...

You need to formulate a real intelligent and concise argument instead of trying to dismiss the evidence by just claiming they are old...

Notice how you completely ignored my pointing you to one of YOUR articles. Go back and read it.

You just spam a lot of this crap in order to sway opinion. For example, compare your chart to this one from Phage:

originally posted by: Phage
Still a problem. What happened to the 1998 el nino event? It doesn't seem to have happened in the "real world" data shown in that graph.

This is from UAH. You list UAH on your chart. Notice 1998. Why is 1998 so tiny on your chart?

Again, actually read your references. Go scroll down and look at the figures. For fun, look at Fig. 5, where they show temperatures circa 2000 are roughly equivalent to around 1700, during the cooler depths of the Little Ice Age (~1300 to about 1850). If you pin your hopes on this, does that mean for you that the Little Ice Age was warmer?

CO2Science.org is garbage and frequently twists articles to their perspective in their summaries.

Even despite these attempts to paint the past as warmer, it still doesn't negate CO2 causing warming. Seriously, this ain't hard. Mars is 96% CO2 with the surface at 6 mbar. Mars' equilibrium temperature is 210K, and would be if CO2 caused no warming - because CO2 does cause warming, it's average surface temperature is around 215K.

Earth's equilibrium temperature is 255K, and that's what it would be if greenhouse gases didn't work like they do. The average temperature of Earth at the surface is actually 288K because of water vapor, CO2, and other greenhouse gases. Higher pressure on Earth means that CO2 has only somewhat less forcing on Earth as it does on Mars, despite the vast difference in ratio and absolute number of molecules.

Water vapor is the most influential greenhouse gas by the combination of absorption and sheer quantity, but it responds quite rapidly to changing conditions. Carbon dioxide is well-mixed and far more stable; this stability helps to regulate the abrupt shifts in water vapor.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
...
Go have a look at that broken link: The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. You'll see some interesting figures on page 123 and 124. Remember also that that was more than 15 years ago, and last year was 0.5°C greater than the apparent end date of that 2000 article, which was 1996.


Are you completely unaware that there is a super-El Niño this year, started in 2015, which is the main reason for the increased temperatures?

As to your comment about me "finding some interesting figures on page 123 and 124"... You will have to be more specific...



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Notice how you completely ignored my pointing you to one of YOUR articles. Go back and read it.
You just spam a lot of this crap in order to sway opinion. For example, compare your chart to this one from Phage:


i did...still makes as much sense as your recent claim that "CO2 lifetime in Earth's atmosphere is hundreds to thousands of years"... which is a bs claim you made up "to try to sway opinion with lies"...


originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Phage
Still a problem. What happened to the 1998 el nino event? It doesn't seem to have happened in the "real world" data shown in that graph.

This is from UAH. You list UAH on your chart. Notice 1998. Why is 1998 so tiny on your chart?


Phage should know really well that El Ninos are anomalies not caused by CO2... Hence they are no proof of any global warming, much less anthropogenic global warming... It is just proof of an anomaly not caused by CO2...

El Nino occurs when there is a decrease in the vertical mixing between the deep cold waters, and the surface warm waters in the Pacific Ocean inhibiting upwelling.


originally posted by: Greven
Again, actually read your references. Go scroll down and look at the figures. For fun, look at Fig. 5, where they show temperatures circa 2000 are roughly equivalent to around 1700, during the cooler depths of the Little Ice Age (~1300 to about 1850). If you pin your hopes on this, does that mean for you that the Little Ice Age was warmer?


What?... I am guessing you need glasses... That first, second, that is a graph for China, and that low temperature seems to be in the 1960s-1970s, not "circa 2000"...


originally posted by: Greven
CO2Science.org is garbage and frequently twists articles to their perspective in their summaries.


Prove that their statements about that paper are false. Don't just proclaim they are... For example, you seem to like to use the skepticalscience website, among others as a source of information, and I have proven in the past with evidence that they lie. For example, they lie about their claim that the Sun's activity stopped increasing and couldn't be the cause of the past warming during the 20th century and part of the 21st century...


originally posted by: Greven
Even despite these attempts to paint the past as warmer, it still doesn't negate CO2 causing warming. Seriously, this ain't hard. Mars is 96% CO2 with the surface at 6 mbar. Mars' equilibrium temperature is 210K, and would be if CO2 caused no warming - because CO2 does cause warming, it's average surface temperature is around 215K.
...


No?... Perhaps a paper by climate scientists like Hans von Storch, who in 2006 testified before Congress to claim:


...
"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
...


cstpr.colorado.edu...

Yet in 2013 he was one of the authors of the following paper.


Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

Hans von Storch(1), Armineh Barkhordarian(1), Klaus Hasselmann(2) and Eduardo Zorita(1)
(1) Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany(2) Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would.
...

www.academia.edu...

So much for the 97% certainty huh?...



edit on 2-3-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct

There are approximately 200 surface Volcanoes erupting at any given time on planet earth. Remember the Icelandic Volcano that erupted a couple of years ago ? It put more carbon into the atmosphere in 4 days than man has been able to decrease in the last 5 years. according to

Rutherford Plimer; an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.
I should also mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it put forth more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - ... Unless China and the Earth agree to work together to decrease carbon emissions no matter how many bricks you put in your toilet bowl to decrease water usage during a flush or cut back to only two squares of toilet paper, or riding your human powered bicycle on the busy streets after you have sold your boat and SUV most of this stuff is touchy feely B.S. and will not matter one iota to the atmosphere of planet earth no matter who comes up with the latest tax scheme...



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
El Nino occurs when there is a decrease in the vertical mixing between the deep cold waters, and the surface warm waters in the Pacific Ocean inhibiting upwelling.
...


Oh and btw, (before some people try to use my short answer to what causes El Niño against my argument) yes, I know it starts with the westward-driven winds in the Pacific weakening or reversing, but it is still not caused by CO2, this anomaly is largely solar driven.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Haha this entire post is amazing. I'll have to use your annoying style of breaking posts apart, sadly.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
i did...still makes as much sense as your recent claim that "CO2 lifetime in Earth's atmosphere is hundreds to thousands of years"... which is a bs claim you made up "to try to sway opinion with lies"...

Interesting. Cite this claim in your reply to this post, if you can.


originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Phage should know really well that El Ninos are anomalies not caused by CO2

Uh? What does CO2 have to do with it? The chart is about TEMPERATURE. The spike in UAH temperature at the same altitude is MISSING from your chart, despite being clearly visible on data from UAH. Explain.


originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
What?... I am guessing you need glasses... That first, second, that is a graph for China, and that low temperature seems to be in the 1960s-1970s, not "circa 2000"...

I need glasses? How about you learn to read? I asked why 2000 was roughly equivalent to 1700 on that reconstruction:

Note the red line (reconstructed temperature) below the black line (measured temperature) at 2000.


originally posted by: ElectricUniverseProve that their statements about that paper are false. Don't just proclaim they are... For example, you seem to like to use the skepticalscience website, among others as a source of information, and I have proven in the past with evidence that they lie. For example, they lie about their claim that the Sun's activity stopped increasing and couldn't be the cause of the past warming during the 20th century and part of the 21st century...

How about you prove their statements true, instead? I don't have much free time these days.


originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
No?... Perhaps a paper by climate scientists like Hans von Storch, who in 2006 testified before Congress to claim:

cstpr.colorado.edu...

Yet in 2013 he was one of the authors of the following paper.

www.academia.edu...

So much for the 97% certainty huh?...

What, at all, does that have to do with Mars and the absolute fact that CO2 causes warming?



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Are you completely unaware that there is a super-El Niño this year, started in 2015, which is the main reason for the increased temperatures?

As to your comment about me "finding some interesting figures on page 123 and 124"... You will have to be more specific...

1998 had an even stronger El Niño, but people frequently include 1998 in their range of temperatures as proof of the 'pause' in global warming. See any cognitive dissonance there?

I do? Look at the charts across the globe. Look at the differences between those charts. Remember, your point was that the LIA happened globally, something I wasn't arguing for or against.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
I should also mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it put forth more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.


That statement is quantitatively and physically false.

scrippsco2.ucsd.edu...

Where is the enormous CO2 signal in 1991 from Pinatubo, then?




top topics



 
73
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join