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.

 

Global warming conspiracy?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
No, there is plenty of evidence, and someone has already compiled it here on ATS; www.abovetopsecret.com...

If other planets are undergoing change at the present time, aswell as the Sun itself, what does that tell you about Global Warming here on Earth.


It doesn't really say anything because the evidence doesn't hold up, like most of muaddib's arguments.

We have a few years of measurements of south pole ice-cap changes on mars, this is one area of a whole planet, you accept this without criticism, but feel happy to question over 100 years of global measurements on earth?

The jupiter example is purely to do with atmospheric changes on that planet, which is supposedly a planetary climate cycle, based on restricted measurements and a single model, a prediction.

Pluto, well, what can we say, it says that the atmosphere pressure has increased causing possible warming. Do we see the same increasing pressure on earth? How long have they measured this for?

How many major planets and moons do we have in the solar system, yet only three are presented as warming, using measurements collected for even less time than here on earth? Not very convincing...

There have been no significant changes in either solar irradiance or galactic cosmic rays for quite a while, yet the warming continues, in fact we can only account for this climate change by introducing human activity.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

There have been no significant changes in either solar irradiance or galactic cosmic rays for quite a while, yet the warming continues, in fact we can only account for this climate change by introducing human activity.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by melatonin]


So how has the climate changed on its own in the past without human influence?

There is far more evidence that the sun is causing these changes than GW, it just depends on who you get your information from, and who you trust.

i trust my own judgement over the pathetic attempt at science that is the UN climate report..



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
So how has the climate changed on its own in the past without human influence?


Numerous reasons - volcanoes, solar cycles, orbiting issues, impact of cosmic bodies, even the presence of organisms that have changed the composition of the atmosphere, continental drift etc with associated oceanic influences etc etc.


There is far more evidence that the sun is causing these changes than GW, it just depends on who you get your information from, and who you trust.


Well present some...


i trust my own judgement over the pathetic attempt at science that is the UN climate report..


Heh, big words. The UN report is based on the science that has been acquired. A real evidence-based position. I think it's more a case of confirmation bias on your part.

You seem to want to trust Muaddib to provide good info. Do you believe that stardust may have caused the current warming? He present lots of research stating how we may be entering a dust-cloud in the thread you linked to. Is that a likely cause do you think? If so, why?

[edit on 13-2-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   
One of the main points that people don't often understand about global warming is that it doesn't require man to make a huge impact in order to destabilize the climate.

The climate is such a large, complex system, we often forget that it's a very delicate system too. It's like we're a wasp compared to a speeding car.
The problem is, what happens when the wasp stings the driver of that car in the eye?

It crashes.

We don't have to have a huge impact on the climate in order to cause large problems.

We know the climate shifts all by it self and has done so dramatically in the past. This only proves that the climate is an unstable system. If you know even the very basics of thermal dynamics, you know full well that the slightest change within an unstable system can cause catastrophic results.

Further, the term "global warming" is a misnomer. "Climate Shift" is more correct as some parts of the planet are likely to cool off while others heat up. In fact, it's fully possible that climate shift could result in an Ice Age (as presented in The Day After Tomorrow (yes, there's actual science behind that... they just sped it up to a ridiculous speed of change)).

Finally, knowing this and learning how to control our contribution's to climate altering emissions can help us to understand how we could possibly help stabilize the climate even in the face of natural shifting. It's very possible that one day mankind could be contributing to the planet's health, rather than causing it harm. Before we can hope to do that, we need to learn more. While we're learning, it doesn't hurt to be more conscious of what we are doing and attempting to mitigate our effects.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Before we can hope to do that, we need to learn more. While we're learning, it doesn't hurt to be more conscious of what we are doing and attempting to mitigate our effects.


But what you have in mind may not be what our government has in mind, in regards to GW.

Can you not understand that because this is an environmental isssue, and people feel deeply about it, there is the potential for the government to abuse this crisis for their own agenda?

Terrorism is one thing, but environmental apocalypse is another. Which has the bigger fear factor at present? You mite say terrorism, but look at how people are reacting to the media blitz on GW...everyone is speaking up about it, when before they were silent.

If that doesn't demonstrate a hidden fear, i dont know what does



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
study el nino the causes who discovered when and how.

look at the last ten years

learn understand then speak

elf



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Anybody see "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on channel 4?? or didn't any supporters of man made GW wantto watch as their arguments were ripped to shreds......
or were channel 4 being paid by the oil industry too........
Our secular society seems to throw up some strange belief systems.......



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Anybody see "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on channel 4?? or didn't any supporters of man made GW wantto watch as their arguments were ripped to shreds......
or were channel 4 being paid by the oil industry too........
Our secular society seems to throw up some strange belief systems.......


I watched and found it a quite laughable attempt at polemics. Numerous errors, distortions, and omissions. But if you found it convincing, cool...



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
it's long past the self-sustaining cult stage, there are numerous reasons for this, so i'll skip that part.


the hysterical conduct of GW doomsayers leads me to believe, that they are past their peak, their narrow focus on carbon dioxide, their insistence on 'immediate', indeliberate action, thier unwillingness to acknowledge things like past GHG levels, natural sources, the concept of saturation (diminishing return/effect), or even simple things like conflicting data. they will keep preaching CO2, CO2, CO2, until the cows come home, nothing you or i can do about it, screw clouds, screw testing these holy models by feeding historic data, screw everything, burn food, destroy the land by growing biofuels, yet leave all the natural gas buried in alaska to keep the prices up. do you now start to understand the true motivation of the GW scare?



in short, this post is directed at anyone willing to listen, while the last line is for you:

there will be a time when all your efforts will be proven nefarious and your promoted theories unveiled as false and useless. no amount of talk will reverse history. enough is enough, see this post for a more elaborate explanation.

[edit on 21.3.2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
or even simple things like conflicting data.


Why do you think this conflicts with GG-induced warming?



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
As I mentioned on another thread, there is much more to be gained financially by denying Global Warming's severity, than by supporting it. This is a poor argument.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaker
As I mentioned on another thread, there is much more to be gained financially by denying Global Warming's severity, than by supporting it. This is a poor argument.


No question about it when considering certain industries.

Scientists in academia are pretty poorly paid, most don't do it for the money, much more to be made in industry jobs. Academic scientists would just move on to another area of research if there was no funding for new studies attempting to understand the mechanisms of climate change. It's what they do.

Few would lose their jobs, they would just study something else. There's not even a restriction on funding. One of the last crannies for contrarians - cosmic rays - has just been funded to the tune of 10million Euros. Scientists just study whatever is likely to show good publishable results and what is of scientific or national/international interest.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by speaker
As I mentioned on another thread, there is much more to be gained financially by denying Global Warming's severity, than by supporting it. This is a poor argument.


No question about it when considering certain industries.

Scientists in academia are pretty poorly paid, most don't do it for the money, much more to be made in industry jobs...


has it occured to you that *IF* they had other, better paying jobs, they'd just , err TAKE them like yesterday?

the sore fact is that scientists come in many flavors and to be frank there are tons of disciplines which are ignored by *the industry* like Cosmology (a sad topic all in its own right) and yeas, atmospheric research. tell me which industry would hire them and then tel me if it's an industry with lots of money in it. i admit that there are applications which would benefit from experts in the field (other than weather forecast, of course), like cellphone relays mounted on stratospheric baloons, unfortunately, *the industry* comes in many flavours too. are you proposing they are all doing it for their lofty ideals? all of them? are you serious?

their actual salary is not nearly as relevant as their hierarchical situation and pesonal dependence, or is it?



Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Long Lance
or even simple things like conflicting data.


Why do you think this conflicts with GG-induced warming?



why are you dismissing everything right from the start? i will elaborate step by step - just ONCE, take it or leave it.

i can only assume that you believe that GHGs holding back radiation mean that higher layers receive less out-bound radiation - a fallacy if there ever was one:

consider the home analogy, by heating you are only compensating losses, all that better insulation does is to slow heat transfer, in other words, all your precious heat is inevitably escaping your home. this amount is of course exactly equal to heat production, provided you are looking at a stationary, not a transient situation.

the clue is that the amount of heat we get is determined by the Sun, mostly. if you ignore transient phenomena (ie. accumulation or loss of heat energy within the system), which is, imho, a good approximation considering we are measuring in thenths of degrees per decade, the inevitable conclusion is that out-bound radiation did not change one bit in terms of total volume, as in output.

that's why it does NOT square with GW as we know it. another highly interesting aspect is that a) no-one predicted this phenomenon using their highly complicated computer models or otherwise and it's b) not mentioned very often.

if anything, you ought to explain why and how this squares well with GW, preferably using an explanation - or even a simple prediction - pre-dating the finding itself by some time. anything else would be considered an ad-hoc- solution, ie. a rabbit out of your hat.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
has it occured to you that *IF* they had other, better paying jobs, they'd just , err TAKE them like yesterday?


Heh, I know one computer programmer who has just taken a job at £80,000 a year straight out of PhD. Those doing the modelling in climate change research have similar skills and will be very lucky to hit that at any point in academia, I'm sure they could leave academia whenever they liked if they wanted to flog a cash-cow.

People work in academia because of the freedom to seek answers to unknowns, to be at the forefront of the advance of knowledge. It's a good job in many ways but the money ain't the motivating factor. I guess you wouldn't believe that people leave well-paid industry jobs to work in academia, and also some leave academia to make more cash doing plumbing. It depends what motivates you I guess.

Work on climate change comes from environmental scientists to physicists. They could take up a job in industry or just research something else in academia, they have the freedom to do that. Which you don't get in industry, you do what the overlords ask you. Plus academics get longer holidays



Originally posted by melatonin
why are you dismissing everything right from the start? i will elaborate step by step - just ONCE, take it or leave it.


I was asking about a claim you made, that mesospheric cooling conflicts with AGW theory. I didn't make any dismissals, but you obviously discovered what was coming...


i can only assume that you believe that GHGs holding back radiation mean that higher layers receive less out-bound radiation - a fallacy if there ever was one:


Except the data is showing the stratosphere to be cooling and the troposphere to be warming. This is a prediction of AGW and climate models.

Therefore we would also expect a similar cooling for the mesosphere.


that's why it does NOT square with GW as we know it. another highly interesting aspect is that a) no-one predicted this phenomenon using their highly complicated computer models or otherwise and it's b) not mentioned very often.

if anything, you ought to explain why and how this squares well with GW, preferably using an explanation - or even a simple prediction - pre-dating the finding itself by some time. anything else would be considered an ad-hoc- solution, ie. a rabbit out of your hat.


This is predicted by AGW theory and climate models. In fact, the preliminary data was conflicting because it suggested the troposphere was not warming as expected, however, this was due to difficulties in interpreting the satellite/radiosonde data.


Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

www.climatescience.gov...

And this is another reason to discard a predominately solar-induced explanation. This would predict warming at the higher levels of the atmosphere, we just don't see it.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
several things:the document is from 4/2006, the data for mesosphere from 7/2005, so the data was known at that time and i don't expect anyone to publish something that is obviously conflicting with observation.

no reason for cooling trends in the higher atmosphere is provided, i know it's only the exec summary, so chances are they have some explanation in the 180p full report. anyways, heat can't just be trapped and 'disappeared' it has to be released sooner or later, ie. total energy balance has to be nearly zero, otherwise we'd experience much more warming than the reported tenths of degrees per decade.

they mentioned ozone levels, which should of course only affect layers high in ozone, not the mesosphere, which, btw, isn't mentioned once throughout the entire .pdf document.



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
several things:the document is from 4/2006, the data for mesosphere from 7/2005, so the data was known at that time and i don't expect anyone to publish something that is obviously conflicting with observation.

no reason for cooling trends in the higher atmosphere is provided, i know it's only the exec summary, so chances are they have some explanation in the 180p full report. anyways, heat can't just be trapped and 'disappeared' it has to be released sooner or later, ie. total energy balance has to be nearly zero, otherwise we'd experience much more warming than the reported tenths of degrees per decade.

they mentioned ozone levels, which should of course only affect layers high in ozone, not the mesosphere, which, btw, isn't mentioned once throughout the entire .pdf document.


The article predominately focuses on tropospheric warming, which is another predictions of basic AGW and GCMs, like the cooling of stratosphere and mesosphere.

You still haven't said why the data conflicts?

Lots of dismissal though, which was what you originally accused me of. The predictions of stratospheric & mesospheric cooling date from Roble & Dickinson's 1989 study I believe, they found a hypothetical doubling of CO2 would lead to a 50K cooling even in the thermosphere.

[edit on 23-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
oh, well, what started out as warming suddenly becomes a shift of temperatures. it's perfectly clear that such a more pronounced, faster occuring, change in the higher atmosphere will 'hit the wall' long before a slower warming trend near the surface does.

local, isolated measurements are not taken seriously, because only 'the whole picture counts', yet the same suddenly does not apply to vertical layers? the whole picture, remember.


if you need a summary, then, well, How do you think cooling trends fit into your model of warming or are do you believe the atmosphere does not belong to the planet.

btw, the report also mentioned contraction, what do you think happens once the colder layers reach lower altitudes? do we even know about critical thresholds? this is a highly interesting phenomenon, the report nearly two years old, yet it was apparently drowned out by GW yelling. that alone was a good reason to introduce it here.


PS: using my exact argument and wording is bad enough, even worse if it does not apply. really, how does an opposing trend conflict a trend???



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
if you need a summary, then, well, How do you think cooling trends fit into your model of warming or are do you believe the atmosphere does not belong to the planet.

btw, the report also mentioned contraction, what do you think happens once the colder layers reach lower altitudes? do we even know about critical thresholds? this is a highly interesting phenomenon, the report nearly two years old, yet it was apparently drowned out by GW yelling. that alone was a good reason to introduce it here.


You made the claim, you should explain why you think this data conflicts. Especially when it clearly doesn't.

There are different trends across the levels of the atmosphere. CO2 is both an absorber and emitter of radiation. If the longwave radiation is being absorbed at the lower levels of the atmosphere, little absorption takes place at the higher levels (most of the incoming solar radiation is shorter wavelengths). It is the absorption that cases warming. Thus emission of longwave energy by CO2 is predominate in the stratosphere and mesosphere - that is, cooling.

But this is still too simplistic, ozone also has a contribution to the cooling effect, shortwave radiation is absorbed by Ozone, destruction of the Ozone layer reduces this source of warming, thus more cooling. But at a slightly higher levels, Ozone has a cooling effect (it is also a GHG). Lower temperatures in the lower stratosphere also enhance destruction of ozone, exacerbating this effect. So, we have two cooling processes above the troposphere. Emission is greater than absorption at these levels.

So, in essence, at the higher levels of the atmosphere, we find inverse effects to those in the troposphere. Even volcanic release of aerosols is shown to have a similar effect - these aerosols cool the troposphere by helping to reflect radiation before it reaches it, but this actually warms the stratosphere.

The atmosphere is not a simple homogenous structure, that's why they define distinct levels of troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere etc. There are interactions etc, but it's not a simple one layer system - for example, the troposphere is cooler the higher we go, but the stratosphere is warmer the higher we go, which again reverses with the mesopshere getting cooler the higher we go, and reversed for thermosphere. The troposphere shows major vertical mixing, the stratosphere doesn't, it's mainly horizontal mixing, hence why it is called the stratosphere.

We also see a contraction of these higher levels of the atmosphere due to cooling, I suppose we could say that the sky is falling, heh.

It's a bit like clouds, depending on thickness and height etc they may cool or warm the troposphere and surface.



PS: using my exact argument and wording is bad enough, even worse if it does not apply. really, how does an opposing trend conflict a trend???


The real problem is that many people complain that climatologists do not account for the complexity of atmosphere and other biospheric processes, when, in fact, they account for as much of these as possible. The effects we are seeing have been predicted for almost twenty years.

But still, we know little of the real details of the processes that are present in the mesosphere, just an idea of overall trends, I guess we could provide funds for those with an interest in finding this information and the skills to do so...

[edit on 23-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
From 1996:


Global change in the mesosphere-lower thermosphere region:
has it already arrived?

G. E. Thomas
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics and Department of Astrophysical,
Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;U.S.A.
(Received 11 September 1995 ; accepted 7 December 1995)

Abstract-This tutorial review describes some possible future scenarios for changes in temperature and water vapor in the mesosphere-lower thermosphere (MLT) region (SCrlOO km). The structure and dynamics
of this region are controlled by physical processes, some of which are very different than in the lower atmosphere, such as gravity-wave breaking, radiative transfer in non-local thermodynamic equilibrium and airglow cooling. The couplings between the various atmospheric properties are illustrated by the use of a 2D zonally-symmetric model ranging from 16 to 120 km. The importance of temperature and water vapor for the occurrence and scattered brightness of mesospheric clouds (at a height of about 83 km) is described in terms of their influence on nucleation, growth and sedimentation of ice particles. At the cold mesopause at high latitude, IR effects would warm the region without dynamical feedbacks, which in the 2D model to be described, cause a net cooling at all latitudes and seasons: The effects of a future doubling of carbon dioxide and methane (and a past halving) are examined by means of the same 2D model. All
models predict. a future lowering of temperature throughout much, if not all of the MLT region, as a result of enhanced IR cooling and dynamical feedbacks. The rise of methane will lead to an enhancement of
water vapor concentrations throughout the upper atmosphere. The cloud existence region, defined in terms of water-ice saturation, is predicted to extend to lower-latitude, high population areas in the future. In a glacial-era scenario, the existence region is found to be confined to a small region near the summertime polar mesopause. Over the past century, with a doubling of methane and a 30% increase in carbon dioxide, the mesospheric cloud existence region may, have advanced from near the pole to its current location inside the SO”-90” latitude zone. The uncertainties in current models and need for further studies are discussed.
Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

(1996) J. Atmos & Terr Physics, 58, 1629+


Contrary to the global warming near the surface, ‘‘greenhouse cooling’’ is expected in response to increasing amounts of radiatively active gases in the middle and upper atmosphere (in what follows the
stratosphere and mesosphere are referred to as the middle atmosphere, and the mesosphere and thermosphere as the upper atmosphere). Carbon
dioxide is the main radiative cooler in this region and, as was first predicted by Roble and Dickinson (1989), its hypothetical doubling would result in dramatic temperature decreases reaching up to 50K in the thermosphere.

Akmaev, Fomichev, & Zhu (2006) J Atmos & solar-Terrestrial Physics, 68, 1879+



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
[You made the claim, you should explain why you think this data conflicts. Especially when it clearly doesn't.

There are different trends across the levels of the atmosphere. CO2 is both an absorber and emitter of radiation. If the longwave radiation is being absorbed at the lower levels of the atmosphere, little absorption takes place at the higher levels (most of the incoming solar radiation is shorter wavelengths). It is the absorption that cases warming. Thus emission of longwave energy by CO2 is predominate in the stratosphere and mesosphere - that is, cooling.


so your CO2 absorbs but never emits again? where do you think the energy will go? you can delay the loss of heat energy you can't stop it, it's exactly what i said a few posts ago. your heat energy will be released again (in random direction, therefore a lot will go back to lower altitudes and the ground first, but a roughly half of it will beam into space (random direction, not accounting for earth's spheroidal shape).

Therefore, the higher atmosphere will get exactly the same amount of heat energy flowing through it, it's simple conservation of energy. it's either re-emitted or accumulated which is kind of hard because warm bodies and gases tend to radiate.


edit: regarding your next post, CO2 is suddenly radiating more energy than it receives? again, there is no difference in energy throughput, as long as the sun keeps shining. hard to reconcile, tbh.

[edit on 23.3.2007 by Long Lance]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join