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.

 

Antarctic sea ice levels hit record low, but experts are not sure why

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The sun is getting brighter, therefore delivering more energy to pretty much every body in the solar system. It only makes sense that they're pretty much all getting warmer, whether they have humans around to blame or not.




posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

No, it isn't. It's actually been getting a bit dimmer for a while. But not that you would notice.
lasp.colorado.edu...
edit on 9/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Careful you don't get jailed for that climate denial. They take their religion very seriously.


Isn't it ironic that Phage, among some others, always like to ridicule other religions, but when it comes to their AGW religion, they are blind to the irony that many people like Phage are trying to force others to live differently because of a "belief" in AGW...
edit on 26-9-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The 3-month plot is cute.

Do you really think solar activity on that short a timescale has any impact on what it's doing long term? That's like drawing conclusions what the stock market is gonna do in the future based on it going up or down on a specific day. You did notice the graph right underneath it on a longer timescale shows a general upward trend right?

Every science book, paper, or even shows that discussed this always acknowledged the sun was getting brighter. Until it became a common point for AGW skeptics to bring up. Now all of a sudden there's a push to pretend it's not getting brighter, but the data is already out there.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785

No, it isn't. It's actually been getting a bit dimmer for a while. But not that you would notice.
lasp.colorado.edu...


Oooh... you mean like how during the time when the sun's overall activity was decreasing, scientists couldn't figure out why visible light from the sun was increasing which was warming Earth's atmosphere?...


Declining solar activity linked to recent warming

The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.

Quirin Schiermeier

An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.

Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.

The study period covers the declining phase of the current solar cycle. Solar activity, which in the current cycle peaked around 2001, reached a pronounced minimum in late 2009 during which no sunspots were observed for an unusually long period.
...
Haigh's team compared SORCE's solar spectrum data with wavelengths predicted by a standard empirical model based mainly on sunspot numbers and area, and noticed unexpected differences. The amount of ultraviolet radiation in the spectrum was four to six times smaller than that predicted by the empirical model, but an increase in radiation in the visible wavelength, which warms the Earth's surface, compensated for the decrease.

Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.
...
"We're seeing — albeit limited to a very short period — a very interesting change in solar irradiation with remarkably similar changes in ozone," says Haigh. "It might be a coincidence, and it does require verification, but our findings could be too important to not publish them now."
Sun surprise

The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...

www.nature.com...

Let's recap the important part again...



...
Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.
...
"We're seeing — albeit limited to a very short period — a very interesting change in solar irradiation with remarkably similar changes in ozone," says Haigh. "It might be a coincidence, and it does require verification, but our findings could be too important to not publish them now."
Sun surprise

The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...


www.nature.com...

An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate

However, i still remember how Phage tried to change what the scientists were saying to claim "it was Earth's atmosphere the one that caused the warming"... That's even though Phage was reading that the scientists were saying the Sun's activity caused the increase in visible light, which to this day has scientists perplexed... But you have to leave it to Phage to try to twist what scientists are actually saying...


edit on 26-9-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

There's a longer term plot there.


Every science book, paper, or even shows that discussed this always acknowledged the sun was getting brighter
Yes, in the very long term, it is. That's what stars do, the get hotter. But we're concerned with decades, not millions of years.
edit on 9/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Believe what you want.

Science is not a religion, it is based on facts, observations and data; not faith.

Phage is spot on almost always spot on with facts.

To suggest that those who believe what the experts are telling us is buying into a religion is completely absurd. It is a attack on science and actual scientists.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah we talking about that Nature article before too. It's interesting. It says is that the assumed (by some) link between solar activity and climate may be inverse rather than direct. In other words, it was assumed that increased solar activity (sunspots and stuff) leads to warming. This paper suggests the opposite. Am I twisting it?


But the thing is, prior to about 1980 solar activity was increasing and temperatures were rising. So what was going on? I've never been convinced that there was a strong relationship between the two.

Am I twisting it? Your source:

"All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic," agrees Lockwood. "It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science."

www.nature.com...
edit on 9/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
As the sun converts more hydrogen to helium, the core gets more dense. It is gradually getting hotter as well. This delivers more energy per unit time to the surface to radiate out. The increased radiation is observed by us as a general upward tick in brightness. When the core gets hot enough to start expanding the star appreciably, the surface will actually get dimmer since all the energy will be radiated over a larger surface area. But for now, while it remains pretty much the same size (the size fluctuates on short time scales as well, but by minuscule amounts, kind of the nature of not being solid), it must get brighter, it's just physics. Over short timescales that we can observe, you'll see fluctuations up and down but it simply has to get brighter over time until it starts growing in size. It's impossible for it not to.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yeah, how convenient for Phage to point to "the opinion of a different scientist", an AGW believer at that, as if it was the truth...

Oh Phage, tell us some more about "your belief" that the Sun had been dimming for a while, meanwhile evidence had/has been pointing to the contrary...

Of course AGW believers had to claim that "opinion from an AGW believer = truth"...


edit on 26-9-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


As the sun converts more hydrogen to helium, the core gets more dense. It is gradually getting hotter as well. This delivers more energy per unit time to the surface to radiate out. The increased radiation is observed by us as a general upward tick in brightness.


That's over an immense timescale. IIRC, it's something like a 1% increase in brightness over about 100 million years.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Winter is just ending in the Antarctic. I expect the claims of global warming to rise with the temperatures.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The seasonal signal is usually accounted for.
For example, "sea ice extent for August", or "sea ice extent for March."
edit on 9/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Or do we still have questions about what is happening to the Earth?...


Of course we do. Look to the other pole for a second:


Arctic sea ice in recent decades has declined even faster than predicted by most models of climate change. Many scientists have suspected that the trend now underway is a combination of global warming and natural climate variability.

www.sciencedaily.com...

edit on 27-9-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Geothermal activity as a cause is a lot more worrisome, to me, anyway, than would be "climate change". Now, if it starts affecting other ice down there....wonder what might be discovered?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oct of 2014



Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
www.nasa.gov...


Perhaps in a natural cycle?



That's the problem: we've only been monitoring the weather in a scientific way for maybe a hundred years. We're only just now beginning to be aware of the longer cycles that are at play.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: intrptr

The seasonal signal is usually accounted for.
For example, "sea ice extent for August", or "sea ice extent for March."

I understand that. There was just a record hi, now a low. As far as 'recorded' history, that is.

I was addressing the 'Globalized' Main Stream narrative.

In summer the rhetoric is 'Global Warming', citing melting ice, hi temperatures, etc.

In winter its 'Climate Change', citing extreme snow and ice.

You yourself taught me that the world is steadily warming, since 'recording' began. I got this from you. Are you changing your perspective?
edit on 27-9-2017 by intrptr because: comma



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Believe what you want.

Science is not a religion, it is based on facts, observations and data; not faith.

Phage is spot on almost always spot on with facts.

To suggest that those who believe what the experts are telling us is buying into a religion is completely absurd. It is a attack on science and actual scientists.


Didn't you even realize that I excerpted facts from several experts which Phage has been claiming is not true?...

BTW, AGW is not "science", it is "a religion of bullies". i guess you all got bullied as children and you are responding back by being a member of the most absurd hoax known to mankind.

If your AGW scientists were not lying, and if there was data supporting the AGW claim, why in the hell were they caught manipulating data, posting false data, erasing raw temperature data, and simply trying to force people to kowtow to the "AGW religion" even with false claims such as the claim the Himalayas would melt in 2035, which was false.

Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist

Sorry bud, but there is no science in your AGW religion. It is a pseudo-science based on flawed computer models which have been proven to be wrong time, and time, and time again.


edit on 27-9-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are extremeky ignorant to claim climate science is "a religion of bullies".

Instead of posting good information that counters what Phage wrote, you launch an attack. Instead of providing solud evidence that counters climate science you write it off as a religion of bullies.

It seems that you are the one doing the bullying here, or at least trying to.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I actually did post information that debunks the lies that Phage always claims in these forums. He claimed there is no increased activity in earthquakes or volcanoes. I posted what real scientists have to say about it, which contradicts Phage's claims. But he continues to claim "it's not true"... He/she/it is in denial like the majority of the AGW crowd are.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join