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: raymundoko
This research letter to Nature really hits home that there is usually a massive co2 spike at the end of or during warming periods.
We are still quite safe though and I personally would love to see levels between 640 and 660, as science agrees those are the best for flora and fauna when tested in the lab.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Nathan-D
The range of frequencies emitted by a radiating body is the direct result of the fact that temperature as measured is a mean, not an overall homogenous value.
Each grain of sand on a beach, for instance, is not at the same temperature as the grain next to it.
This leads to the emitted radiation being a quantized Gaussian function.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mbkennel
Where is the evidence that the massive melts in Greenland and Arctic is from acid rain instead of heat?
Where did I mention either place? The Arctic melt (which includes Greenland) is occurring from warmer waters in the Bering current.
Do you deny that acidification is an integral part of the climate?
Sulfate pollution is also well known as a source of cooling in the atmosphere which should be substantially greater in effect.
I'd like to see some research on that.
The effects of albedo and modeling has been part of climatology and models for decades.
But has always been attributed to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not to freezing point depression.
The heat island effect is another good example of albedo change that is typically discounted.
?? What effect is this?
Transpiration
As it turns out plant cover is increasing a bit, and yet global warming is barreling forward.
Thank you proving one of my points: carbon dioxide levels increase floral growth rates.
Mentioning a few physical effects which people know about already doesn't invalidate the known science and mechanisms connecting them.
I'm not trying to invalidate anything. I am replying to a request for information on climate-related phenomena which has been unrepresented or underrepresented in the models. If anyone is trying invalidate anything, you seem intent on invalidating these examples of common knowledge when it comes to climate models.
No, even science agrees co2 did not cause the initial warming.
We are still quite safe though and I personally would love to see levels between 640 and 660, as science agrees those are the best for flora and fauna when tested in the lab.
Research examining strontium isotopes in the sediment record shed more light on this question (Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation.
So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).
The usual use of these types of questions is not for scientific enlightenment but disparagement of the existing scientific base and understanding in order to diffuse the will for policy action.
Simple: we can measure...
To state CO2 has no effect whatsoever would be pretty ...eh... extreme... and I have yet to see one decent study going down that road.
Agreed. Which is why we have a load of evidence in this thread by now, models coherent with observational data for ex. We talked about them.
Or do you mean the lack of models for the historic rise of temps and CO2 levels at regular intervals? PlanetX should be incorporated in those theories you say?
This is somewhat misleading. The temperature reflects a mean value to begin with. The instantaneous kinetic energies of the elementary particles is fluctuation.
It's awfully close.
No, that's not it. What's really happening is that in thermodynamic equilibrium the charged electrons of a substance are fluctuating substantially and randomly, but with mean energy roughly corresponding to temperature. The variation is at the particle level.
Bolding mine.
The effect of acidification on melting would need to be quantified and demonstrated as a substantial influence on albedo. Some short searches do not show any obvious scientific result or interest on this. The effect would need to be quantified and compared against the obvious one (temperature change).
I don't understand---albedo changes from human land use activity? (e.g. paving a light grassland with dark asphalt?) That's something certainly taken into consideration.
That's not necessarily a positive if it comes along with many negatives.
The usual use of these types of questions is not for scientific enlightenment but disparagement of the existing scientific base and understanding in order to diffuse the will for policy action.
...
The average rate of big earthquakes — those larger than magnitude 7 — has been 10 per year since 1979, the study reports. That rate rose to 12.5 per year starting in 1992, and then jumped to 16.7 per year starting in 2010 — a 65 percent increase compared to the rate since 1979. This increase accelerated in the first three months of 2014 to more than double the average since 1979, the researchers report.
...
...
1. Introduction
Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Given these high rates, along with suggestions that damaging earthquakes may be causatively linked at global distance [e.g., Gomberg and Bodin, 1994; Pollitz et al., 1998; Tzanis and Makropoulos, 2002; Bufe and Perkins, 2005; Gonzalez-Huizar et al., 2012; Pollitz et al., 2012, 2014], we investigate whether there is a significant departure from a random process underlying these rate changes. Recent studies have demonstrated that M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes (and also tsunamis) that occurred since 1900 follow a Poisson process [e.g., Michael, 2011; Geist and Parsons, 2011; Daub et al., 2012; Shearer and Stark, 2012; Parsons and Geist, 2012; Ben-Naim et al., 2013]. Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media [e.g., www.nbcnews.com...]. We extend our analysis to M ≥ 5.0 levels, as many of these lower magnitude events convey significant hazard, and global catalogs have not generally been tested down to these thresholds.
2. Methods and Data
We work with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) catalog of M≥ 5.0 global earthquakes for the period between 1979 and 2014.3 with a primary focus on the recent interval between 2010 and 2014.3 that shows the highest earthquake rates (Table 1 and Figure 1). A variety of tests suggest that the catalog is complete down to magnitudes between M=4.6 and M=5.2, depending on the method used to assess it (see supporting information). We examine a range of lower magnitude thresholds above M =5.0 to account for this uncertainty.
...
Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet
10 June 2014, 10:43 pm EDT By James Maynard Tech Times
Melting of a major glacier system in western Antarctica may be caused by underwater volcanoes, and not by global climate change, according to new research.
Thwaites Glacier, a massive outlet for ice that empties into Pine Island Bay, is flowing at a rate of one-and-a-quarter miles per year. The bay opens up into the Amundsen Sea.
The Thwaites Glacier has been the subject of scrutiny by climatologists in the last few years, as new information about the severity of the melting becomes available. Traditional models had assumed heating from subterranean sources was fairly even around the region. New data provides details about areas where little was previously known.
University of Texas researchers studied how water moves underground in the region. They found liquid water was present in a greater number of sources than previously believed, and it is warmer than estimated in previous studies.
...
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: mbkennel
The usual use of these types of questions is not for scientific enlightenment but disparagement of the existing scientific base and understanding in order to diffuse the will for policy action.
If the questions and data disrupt policy action, then it sounds like the policy action is based on intellectually dishonest science reports...
There is no reason we cannot tackle an issue on which there is precious little debate while we work towards a better understanding of a subject that is under debate.
Planet X? Really?
"For the first time in over 150 years, there is solid evidence that the solar system's planetary census is incomplete."
Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.
We also know underwater volcanoes have been melting glaciers despite the claims that it was CO2 doing it.