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.
BAMS State of the Climate
International report confirms 2015 was Earth’s warmest year on record
Greenhouse gases highest on record. Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide, rose to new record high values during 2015. The annual average atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, the location of the world’s longest direct measurements of CO2, was 400.8 parts per million (ppm), which surpassed 400 ppm for the first time. This was 3.1 ppm more than 2014, and was the largest annual increase observed in the 58-year record. The 2015 average global CO2 concentration was not far below, at 399.4 ppm, an increase of 2.2 ppm compared with 2014.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude
Wow...cute one liner.
I read a lot..much more than the average person, and I don't watch tv.
What is your purpose of posting many times on this thread?
Are you in denial that we are observing as increase of CO2 levels? Are you trying to deny that burning fossil fuels for energy is the major contributor to the CO2 spike? Are you trying to deny the concept of radiative forcing?
sucks up all the talking points of the militant AGW crowd.
Donald Trump was Against Climate change until he was for it
By its final year, it was obvious that the 2000s were going to be the warmest decade in history. 2005, after all, set records as the hottest year ever recorded. And 2007 was the second-hottest year—until 2009 stole that record. 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006 also all landed in the top-ten.
Climate change was real, its effects were felt planet-wide. But the United States, the world’s largest economy and its second-largest polluter, seemed to be doing little about it.
a full-page ad appeared in The New York Times. The ad, an open letter, called on President Obama and Congress to finally pass legislation restricting greenhouse-gas emissions.
“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” it read. “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”
Below that text were 55 names. They included squishily liberal executives and various other famous people, like the CEOs of Patagonia, Timberland, Blue Man Group, and Chipotle; and Deepak Chopra, Martha Stewart, Kenneth Cole, and Ben and Jerry.
Someone else was on that list, too: Donald J. Trump, and his three children. That’s right: The Republican nominee for president supported urgent climate action before he opposed it.
Trump flipped on climate change long before his presidential run. Less than two months after that letter ran in the Times, he had implied to a crowd that global warming couldn’t exist if snowfall was setting records.
Trump endorsed urgent climate action when the liberal CEOs came calling; now he rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change because, you know, he’s running as a Republican
Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.
Parrenin et al. (p. 1060; see the Perspective by Brook) present a revised age scale for the atmospheric component of Antarctic ice cores, based on the isotopic composition of the N2 that they contain, and suggest that temperature and CO2 changed synchronously over four intervals of rapid warming during the last deglaciation.
But the bubbles are actually younger than the ice that traps them. That’s because the bubbles start out as air spaces between snowflakes on the surface, and gradually become entombed as new layers of snow compress the old, eventually turning it to ice. That doesn’t happen, however, until the snow is between 200 and 300 feet deep, and until it does happen, air circulates within the snow. “We have an ice archive,” said Parrenin in an interview, “and we have a gas archive, and they don’t have the same age.”
The post you replied to was concerning baseline levels.
Can you simply tell me what this report says about baselines and allow me to verify, instead of expecting me to digest the whole 300 pages and report back?
I think I made my position(s) clear in my first two posts in this thread. Do you have anything to say yourself on that position?
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So, everyone - can you answer the question "Why?" from the title in one word?
Six words or less?
That would expedite and facilitate the thread's resolution.
...Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability. In the second half of the century we find that the warming is largely caused by changes in greenhouse gases, with changes in sulphates and, perhaps, volcanic aerosol offsetting approximately one third of the warming. Warming in the troposphere, since the 1960s, is probably mainly due to anthropogenic forcings, with a negligible contribution from natural forcings.
During 1907– 1957 we found that there was negligible net anthropogenic warming, with the effect of greenhouse gases largely being balanced by other anthropogenic forcings. Therefore, in this period, the warming was largely naturally caused. Reconstructions of temperature changes, using proxy indicators, of the last 500 – 1000 years [Crowley, 2000; Mann et al., 1998] suggest that the observed warming in this period is unusually rapid. If our analyses are correct, in attributing it largely to natural causes, this was an unusual natural event. We believe that further investigation of this period is needed.