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.

 

Enjoy Earth While It Lasts: Atmospheric Carbon Levels Pass the Point of No Return

page: 12
44
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Polite Mod Reminder and Request:

Hi People,

Can we please remember the rules we agree to here at ATS - one being to certainly debate the topic, but please do not personally attack the posters themselves.


Thank you




posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Signals

Self reflect man... just do it.

So with your thought process - because the Sun has the capacity to raise or lower global climate temperatures, we shouldn't prosecute or fine humans for doing it themselves artificially?

Did you know the Earth has killed many people via natural disasters like Earthquakes, land slides, floods, etc.? I guess that means we shouldn't prosecute humans when they murder people.

That's so silly.





edit on 2-10-2016 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Although apollo 13 is a rather fitting analogy to the whole 'climate change' HOAX.

Did you not read the post at the top of that page?

Scientists have conducted experiments that conclusively prove that rising CO2 increased the amount of W/m^2 at the Earth's surface.

Disprove that - and I mean disprove, not call the scientists names.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

It is not up to anyone to 'disprove' anything. It is up to those making the claim to prove it!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Um. Did you see the study being referred to?



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What study? The OP refers to a blog.

The article also refers to destruction of 93% of the Great Barrier Reef, which the Australian government completely denies and turns out it was a fraud money raising campaign used by Green Peace.

It also refers to "THE HOTTEST YEAR, EVAH" but when I look at the artic ice melt season, it ended early this year on September 10, 2016 (or September 7, 2016 if you actually look at the data). Oops - now how did it happen that during the "HOTTEST YEAR, EVAH", the artic ice melt season ended a full 2 weeks earlier than usual????? And how did our very serious scientist misinterpret the data to declare that the season end on September 10 when it clearly ended on September 7???????

Sorry but the article referred to in the OP is, in my opinion, a public scare opinion piece. No warming has happened that is outside the normal deviation of earths temperature.

I think our CAGW scientists have told so many porkies that the are having trouble keeping it all straight. Unfortunately, they know that a lie travels the globe before the truth has time to put on its pants.

BTW, I also notice the lastest adjustment of the temperature record that removed a great deal of variability from the mid-century temperature record. This latest adjustment is the sole reason why our "scientists" are able to declare 2016 as the "HOTTEST YEAR, EVAH."


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No, the study at the top of the page prior to this one (aka "that page"):

originally posted by: Greven
That's only a partial representation of humanity's estimated emissions for the year, since the biosphere is still acting as a net sink. An increase in CO2 concentrations has been observed in real life conditions to reradiate thermal energy back to the surface:

The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.

Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

I expounded on that only slightly:

originally posted by: Greven
You'll note two things there:
1) +0.2 W/m^2 increase per decade directly attributable to CO2
2) 10% of the overall trend is directly attributable to CO2 (ie: +2.0 W/m^2 total over a decade)
Oh, by the way, an increase of 1ºC is estimated to require an increase of 3.7 W/m^2.

Historical annual averages for atmospheric CO2 from start to end:
2000 - 368.2 ppm
2010 - 388.26 ppm


Regarding the arctic melt season ending early... you seem to have omitted its ranking in terms of area, which is tied for second smallest with 2007. Weather can change things up there, which is in part how the smallest extent happened in 2012.

e: although, given the state of the ice, maybe they're being too generous:

edit on 19Sun, 02 Oct 2016 19:33:12 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: ice pic



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This study:
newscenter.lbl.gov...



BTW, I also notice the lastest adjustment of the temperature record that removed a great deal of variability from the mid-century temperature record. This latest adjustment is the sole reason why our "scientists" are able to declare 2016 as the "HOTTEST YEAR, EVAH."
Which adjustment would that be?



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The warming was "linked" by the scientists to CO2.

If there is one thing I have learned to be aware of when reading studies in the words "linked to" and "associated with". These words do not mean caused.

As we are all aware, correlation is not causation. How do the scientists know that warming caused by some other driver may be affecting levels of carbon dioxide?

We are all aware now that ocean currents like PDO and AMOC affect climate but scientists weren't even aware of PDO until some fishery expert documented its existance. But the theory of CAGW was presented to the world in the 1970s.

What else do they not know?

What is cooling AMOC and why is the artic ice melt season ending so soon, during the "HOTTEST YEAR, EVAH"?

Climate is a chaotic system. These scientist are talking about fractions of watts while climate models fail to account for the effect of clouds.


I am talking about sea surface temperature adjusts (which affects combined sea and land temperature sets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




I am talking about sea surface temperature adjusts (which affects combined sea and land temperature sets.

Version 4?
That was implemented in 2014. Tell me, does it affect the trendline?



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff yes and a longer growing season- Its all about the suns variable energy output- we are entering a period of decreased solar activity and will start to feel the chill soon enough. Co2 levels 400ppm now-the dinosaurs built strong bodies with Co2 levels of 7000ppm Why not address a real problem like Fukushima? oh cant make any money there.




posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

here is a discussion

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

The discussions says no change to the trendline. BUT:




One of the most significant improvements involves corrections to account for the rapid increase in the number of ocean buoys in the mid-1970s. Prior to that, ships took most sea surface temperature observations. Several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that buoy measurements are systematically cooler than ship measurements of sea surface temperature. This is particularly important because both observing systems now sample much of the sea surface, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage of observations by up to 15%. In ERSST v4, a new correction accounts for ship-buoy differences thereby compensating for the cool bias to make them compatible with historical ship observations.


This is really troubling. Buoys apparently record cooler ocean temperatures than ships, so the buoy temperatures were "adjusted" by making them warmer so that they would match better with ship temperatures.

Now - why would anyone do that? Maybe the ship temperatures should have been adjusted "cooler' so that they matched the buoy temperatures? But that would really mess up the theory wouldn't it?

or maybe - like I learned in elementary school - you just can't compare apples to oranges?

It appears to me that there are just too many errors in temperature data sets (water, close to land air, far from land space, northern hemisphere/southern hemisphere, trying to come up with just one temperature that represents ice fields, deserts, high latitude, low latidute etc etc etc.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Read up on what? That plants won't grow without water? No, thanks, got that.


Here's what I noticed: they got essentially the same carbon dioxide level fluctuations in Oklahoma and Alaska. That strikes me as strange and unexpected. There is much more flora in Oklahoma than in Alaska, and therefore is a much higher rate of photosynthetic scrubbing. Atmospheric mixing could easily account for some of that, but could it account for levels (and variations) that close? I also noticed they got the same carbon dioxide reflection at both locations. That is only expected if the carbon dioxide levels were identical. Finally, I noticed the reflection power was 0.2 W/m^2 per decade... 0.02 W/m^2 per year... so each year, based on an average solar irradiation value of 1370 W/m^2, that's an average present power increase of less than 0.0015%

Solar radiation power can easily vary by 0.4 W/m^2, or +/-0.03%. That's 20 times the effect, yet temperatures do not spin out of control due to solar variation.

I'd be interested to see if this observation is repeatable; unexpected results do not mean bad results. But even if it is repeatable, those figures do not indicate a need to panic IMO.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

We got Maybe 2 or 3 Billion Years Left , I will try to make the Best of it .



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




The discussions says no change to the trendline.
So. Getting warmer.


Now - why would anyone do that? Maybe the ship temperatures should have been adjusted "cooler' so that they matched the buoy temperatures?
Because it was found that the buoy instrumentation has a tendency to read low. But they still show the trend. Right? They don't show cooling, right?



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychicCroMag

Fukushima simply cannot be addressed until Global Warming is averted. Of course, that will take decades even if everyone got on board the carbon tax train today. But it's OK; Fukushima will still be radioactive for thousands of years.

[/sarcasm]

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
who knows? Why do direct read of sst's read low? who decides? Why? How?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just because someone wrote "there is no change in the trendline" does not mean that there is no change in the trend line.

It is unbelievable how many studies make statements in the abstract that are not supported by the data in the study. They know that most people never get to examining the actual data.

If the buoy temperature is right...then it would cool the trend line, would it not?

Why would someone just adjust the Argo buoy data like that>

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is unbelievable how many studies make statements in the abstract that are not supported by the data in the study.
How many?


They know that most people never get to examining the actual data.
Have you?



If the buoy temperature is right...then it would cool the trend line, would it not?
It might shift it down, but so what? It still shows an increasing trend.




Why do direct read of sst's read low?

You mean the buoy data? Because of biases inherent in the instruments. Such biases are not unique to bouys or even temperature sensors.

But the biased sensors show the warming trend, right? Because you've examined the data, right?


edit on 10/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No I haven't.

I don't even know how to access it.

I just know that the Argo buoy float temperatures have been adjusted to match ship temperatures.

Now I know the inherent problem with ships temperatures (bucket method versus intake method) and the inherent inaccuracy of old mercury thermometers. I thought the direct read devices were more accurate than mercury. I can't understand why direct read would be adjusted to the less accurate mercury?

Tired of Control Freaks



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join