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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures ...

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The fact that we have no clue why some El Niños are stronger than others and we don't even know what causes an El Niño in the first place, says a lot about our knowledge of the climate.
It is easy to explain a greenhouse effect in theory but the reality is a lot more complicated.

Models are nothing more than 'complicated' math. It doesn't use real observations. So it's also easy to change and tweak outcome.

Unless we have full knowledge of how the climate works, we have no right to assume anything, especially not letting people pay for 'their' so called contributions to climate change or spreading fear we will destroy the earth unless we stop using our cars, don't stay too long under the shower or for not using energy saving lightbulbs.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for a cleaner earth, air and water but there is too much political, economic influence playing part in it all and begin to wonder who or what has control at which agenda.
Everyone these days are climate experts even moviestars.

edit on 30-11-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

It doesn't matter who published the article. Just check the data for yourself in the links I provided.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nowhere in the satellite records we see such a steep drop in global land temperature.

I can't see too much of a problem in the article itself or how it is written, it touches both sides, believers and sceptics.
The headline could have been a bit less sensationalized yes.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: mbkennel

The fact that we have no clue why some El Niños are stronger than others and we don't even know what causes an El Niño in the first place, says a lot about our knowledge of the climate.


That's false. There have been physical mechanisms probed and understood for many years now. Where do you think it came from?



It is easy to explain a greenhouse effect in theory but the reality is a lot more complicated.

Models are nothing more than 'complicated' math. It doesn't use real observations. So it's also easy to change and tweak outcome.


That's also false. The practice of oceanography and climatology for decades has been convergence of theory, observations and models. They aren't unconstrained at all---they are continually checked and calibrated matched to observations. And then there are multiple groups of models making different assumptions so that the risk of any one model's particular failures is minimized and the consensus of the models predicts better than any one model, as demonstrated empirically.



Unless we have full knowledge of how the climate works, we have no right to assume anything,


Again, false and foolish. We have a greater understanding of climate than human physiology. And we can safely say that smoking and eating arsenic is a really bad idea, even though we don't know how to cure HIV.


especially not letting people pay for 'their' so called contributions to climate change or spreading fear we will destroy the earth unless we stop using our cars, don't stay too long under the shower or for not using energy saving lightbulbs.


Ah, now we get to the real issue. Some people are selfish and don't want to be told to stop doing something which hurts other people.



Don't get me wrong I'm all for a cleaner earth, air and water but there is too much political, economic influence playing part in it all and begin to wonder who or what has control at which agenda.


Who has more to lose? Fossil fuel billionares?



Everyone these days are climate experts even moviestars.


Repeating the correct understanding of actual climate experts does not make the message false.


edit on 30-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mbkennel


Why is the ice melting faster?

Might have something to do with the increased temperature of the Bering current.


The change in albedo is a feedback parameter on climate sensitivity.

Yes it is. But this one is minor due to the earth's curvature. The Arctic (and Antarctic) receive the least amount of solar energy, thus the albedo change at the poles has the least effect of a similar albedo change in other locations.


As it turns out, there is no other place on the planet with as large an albedo change and over as wide an area.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Are you considering the albedo change in terms of lower incidence angles, or are you using a normal angle to support your statements?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

i will show you something in another thread that the AGW camp has been claiming 'it's not happening and which does affect climate change. Will put link here once posted.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
I would like to point out, for the benefit of our US members (and that would therefore be the great majority), that the Daily Mail is a British tabloid newspaper which has a deserved reputation for running sensationalist stories, designed rather to shock and scare than to edify. It is for this reason that many Britons refer to it ironically as the 'Daily Fail'.

The Sun is another one.

Avoid these two when quoting sources, unless more reputable sources are running the same story; in which case, it would probably be wiser to use the more reputable ones.


reputable ones ?

You mean like CNN, MSNBC and the like...?

Oh yeah..I know about those...recently even more so. Frankly...Alex Jones has way more decent reputation these days than all those stooges put together.

And the American people have spoken on the subject. The verdict has been given. It's FAIL.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Still haven't shown the climate model that predicts the fall of temperature over land. Why is the temperature over land falling? Isn't CO2 a well mixed gas?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

How can I put it in a way that might be acceptable to you?

When it comes to controversial news regarding AGW, a single article, only to be found in the Daily Mail, convinces me of nothing at all.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mbkennel

Are you considering the albedo change in terms of lower incidence angles, or are you using a normal angle to support your statements?

TheRedneck


The fact that nowhere else on the planet is a major amount of surface area going from bright white to very dark.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

Still haven't shown the climate model that predicts the fall of temperature over land. Why is the temperature over land falling?


Is it?

data.giss.nasa.gov...


Isn't CO2 a well mixed gas?


Yes, the experimental observations show so. It means that the increase in radiative forcing from CO2 (and many other anthropogenic greenhouse forcings) are global, hence, the word "global warming".

In any specific location there is all sorts of effects from weather, as heat can and is transported by many mechanisms.

edit on 1-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Waiting for an Al Goreite to come on here and Blame El Nino on Humans .






posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Now you are a little too smart to be showing me a Land AND Ocean graph and pretend its just land. So you are deliberately trying to use trickery here.

Temperature is falling over land. Ocean will take longer because it retains more heat.

It looks like CO2 isn't even a factor hear. Its all natural. Its been natural all along (although I don't discount a small effect from CO2), However, increased CO2 has been beneficial having increased earth's greening by 14 % and increased yields for grain crops.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


The fact that nowhere else on the planet is a major amount of surface area going from bright white to very dark.

OK, that's sort of an answer. You're considering albedo change from a normal angle. That's a false assumption.

The incidence angle near the poles is very acute, nowhere near normal. That's actually the reason it's so cold there, since solar energy is spread over an area rougly equal to the normal incidence spread divided by the sine of the actual incidence angle. At low incidence angles, water becomes 100% reflective due to the refractive index. Thus, at these low incidence angles, there is no albedo change.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

Now you are a little too smart to be showing me a Land AND Ocean graph and pretend its just land. So you are deliberately trying to use trickery here.



No.

Scroll down. There are two charts. "Global Mean Estimates based on Land and Ocean Data". The next one is "Global Mean Estimates based on Land Data only".


Temperature is falling over land.


Not true. See observational data in link above.


Ocean will take longer because it retains more heat.


True, the ocean has a much higher heat capacity than land and atmosphere.

Its temperature is increasing as well.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...


It looks like CO2 isn't even a factor hear. Its all natural.


From what 'natural' mechanism? And how does the change from 280 ppm of CO2 to over 400, plus the other artificial GHG's not have an effect on climate.


edit on 2-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mbkennel


The fact that nowhere else on the planet is a major amount of surface area going from bright white to very dark.

OK, that's sort of an answer. You're considering albedo change from a normal angle. That's a false assumption.

The incidence angle near the poles is very acute, nowhere near normal. That's actually the reason it's so cold there, since solar energy is spread over an area rougly equal to the normal incidence spread divided by the sine of the actual incidence angle. At low incidence angles, water becomes 100% reflective due to the refractive index. Thus, at these low incidence angles, there is no albedo change.


In Summer, is the arctic ice bright or dark from space? Does the ocean look bright or dark? It's plainly obvious from the mark 1 eyeball that it still makes a large difference, otherwise ocean would look as bright as ice. It doesn't.

The scientists who model this for a living know about all the physics.

www.gfdl.noaa.gov...


edit on 2-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Then you think they would know that the arctic doesn't get much sun at this time of the year, wouldn't you?

In point of fact, the sun does not shine in the arctic for two months every winter.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


In Summer, is the arctic ice bright or dark from space?

The ice is bright because it reflects light in random directions. Most solids do that because their surfaces are not as smooth as liquids. Reflective directionality is a function of the angle of incidence compared to the normal angle of the surface, which is itself a rather random function.

The water is dark because it is not reflecting light in random directions. Instead, it has an increased albedo at incidence angles greater than the refractive index and acts as a directional mirror at angles below the refractive index. Have you ever seen the sun reflecting off a body of water as it sets? It's the same thing. The light is hitting the water at an acute angle and it is being reflected, not absorbed, in a highly directional fashion. If a space observer were looking in the right place, the water would appear to be brighter than the ice.


The scientists who model this for a living know about all the physics.

So do engineers...

TheRedneck

ETA: Your link is a report on non-linearity of albedo change in the Arctic, which is exactly what I was describing. Would it help if I used big words?

edit on 12/2/2016 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I love it when you get all sciencey...


So much of this is agenda driven, even where the science is concerned. Grant money. Tenure. Other assorted political intrigues.

Sometime very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.




Would it help if I used big words?


Not really, no.

edit on 12/2/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join