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 ProfTom
Before I get attacked - I want to discuss this reasonably. No arguing please!!!
I would like to ask some common sense questions, and lets get some common sense answers, no name calling or false theories or "Bush is behind it" - PLEASE!!!
1. What happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Thirty or so years ago, we were told that the ozone layer was not going to be here and the rate of skin cancer was going to be 10 - 30% of the worlds population, trees, plants and other wildlife was going to die, drouts...etc..etc.. and it was all do to those nasty little Cfls - chloroflourocarbons (spelling?) we used in deotorant.(the stuff you spray under your arms to smell nice -joke), I also believe they were in air conditioners and refrigerators.
My answer: I don't know about anybody else but, the last time I checked, I don't have skin cancer nor do I know anyone with skin cancer, I have two refrigerators and about 100,000 btus of air conditioning in my home. UH, I'm still me, no more healthy no less healthy.
Ozone Depletion and Skin Cancer
Ozone in the stratosphere protects Earth from damaging amounts of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. A depleted ozone layer would allow more of the Sun's rays to reach Earth's surface. An increase in the levels of UV-B reaching the Earth as a result of ozone depletion may compound the effects of spending more time in the Sun. According to some estimates a sustained 10% global loss of ozone may lead to a 26% increase in the incidence of skin cancers among fair skinned people. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that a 2% increase in UV-B radiation would result in a 2 to 6% increase in non-melanoma skin cancer. Increases in UV radiation relative to levels in the 1970s are estimated to be as much as 7% at Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes during the winter and spring, 4% at Northern Hemisphere mid-latidudes in summer and autumn, and 6% at Southern Hemisphere mid-latidudes on a year-round basis.
Australia, with high sunshine levels, has very high skin cancer rates. An estimated 2 out of every 3 people in most parts of the country will develop some form of skin cancer. In Queensland, where UV-B radiation is the highest, the probability jumps to 3 in every 4. In America, in 1935, the chances of developing the more serious malignant melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1991 it had soared to 1 in 150, and it is predicted that by the beginning of the new millennium it will be 1 in 75.
#2. The daily and weekly whether reports on the nightly news programs. This week is an exceptionally good week to discuss this with the SO CALLED "blizzard" in the northeast. They can't get the daily, weekly forcast correct, BUT they know what's going to happen in 30, 50, 75, 100 years from now?
MY answer: On the news this week they said (for my area - new york) that we would get between 1 - 3 inches of snow and freezing rain. Okay, we probably got 6 inches. My point: they were wrong even when they were reporting it. The story didn't change until there was more than the 3 inches on the ground and then they didn't know if it was going to end.
If they don't know while its happening, how can they be 100% sure of what's going to happen 30-50-75-100 years from now?
#3. The consensus is that humans and their "toys" contribute to global warming. My question is, How do we know how much Co2 is in the atmosphere now? How did we measure it? When did they first measure it and how did I miss it? What are we comparing these measurments too?
Now, no long dragged out formulas on this please, because science is not exact.
My point to this is : What if they aren't measuring the right gases? or What if their way of measuring is incorrect? Scientists have been wrong in the past, what makes them right about this?
#4. My last question. What makes this new report from this UN council untouchable? or infalible? Why must it be right? And why aren't we allowed to hear the opposition? Their must be some opposition. It doesn't make sense that every scientist on the planet agrees with this.
Originally posted by melatonin
Rather than depend on belief, what does actual science have to say on the solar variation issue.....
So it seems Muaddib's claim is a red-herring and cannot fully account for the current period of warming.
large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.
13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's
13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas. Much drier than present over much of Europe and the Middle East, though wetter-than-present conditions at first prevailed in NW Europe.
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly over a few decades, back to relative warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Isotope Stage 1).
11,500 - 10,500 y.a. - climates possibly still slightly cooler than present-day.
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's
about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool phase lasting about 200 years, about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas. Wetter-than-present conditions in NW Europe, but drier than present in eastern Turkey.
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates generally slightly warmer and moister than today's.
(but; at 5,900 y.a. - a possible sudden and short-lived cold phase corresponding to the 'elm decline').
Since about 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present
2,600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas
(but; 1,400 y.a. [536-538 A.D.] wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere).
(Followed by 'Little Ice Age' about 700-200 ya)
The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa
P. D. Tyson1, W. Karlén2, K. Holmgren2 and G. A. Heiss3.
1Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
2Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
3Geomar, Wischhofstr. 1-3, 24148 Kiel, Germany; present address: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany, E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The Little Ice Age, from around 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300 in South Africa, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley.
The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1oC cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres.
The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.
Ulysses sees Galactic Dust on the rise
01 Aug 2003
Since early 1992 Ulysses has been monitoring the stream of stardust flowing through our Solar System. The stardust is embedded in the local galactic cloud through which the Sun is moving at a speed of 26 kilometres every second. As a result of this relative motion, a single dust grain takes twenty years to traverse the Solar System. Observations by the DUST experiment on board Ulysses have shown that the stream of stardust is highly affected by the Sun's magnetic field.
.............
Unlike Earth, however, the Sun reverses its magnetic polarity every 11 years. The reversal always occurs during solar maximum. That's when the magnetic field is highly disordered, allowing more interstellar dust to enter the Solar System. It is interesting to note that in the reversed configuration after the recent solar maximum (North negative, South positive), the interstellar dust is even channelled more efficiently towards the inner Solar System. So we can expect even more interstellar dust from 2005 onwards, once the changes become fully effective.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by melatonin
Rather than depend on belief, what does actual science have to say on the solar variation issue.....
So it seems Muaddib's claim is a red-herring and cannot fully account for the current period of warming.
There are many factors that influence the Climate, and the "red herring" is trying to claim that because "one" of the factors doesn't "supposedly" account for the changes we have been seeing "is proof that mankind caused the current Climate Change", as some claim is "disengenuous" to say the least.
Originally posted by melatonin
.........
I know you're desperate to gloss over the evidence, but you seemed to ignore the major part of my post - the bit with the scientific evidence in...
Originally posted by melatonin
I was just refuting your erroneous claim.
Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: Muaddib, take the stellar cloud thing into the other thread we're discussing in, I will answer you there. Also, explain how and why you think 'galactic dust' will affect climate.
Originally posted by Muaddib
I am not the one desperate Regenmacher, i mean melatonin.
"Interstellar cloud thing"?... wow, here i thought that you were trying to claim to be a scientist...
Originally posted by cpdaman
there are plenty dissident scientists , there views are just not put in the report
climate fluctuations have been taken advantage of by those looking to capitzlize, people used to be afraid of a mini ice age, now it is global warming. (marketing)
we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate