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.

 

How ridiculous is Global Warming?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Do i also need to remind you that all planets and even moons in our solar system are presently undergoing warming and Climate Change? or that the Sun's activity has increased more in the last 60 years thant for the past 8,000 years?


And the Solanki study has been questioned by using other proxies of solar activity (also see Raisbeck & Yiou, 2004 for similar issues) ...


Brief Communications Arising
Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045

Climate: How unusual is today's solar activity?
Raimund Muscheler1, Fortunat Joos2, Simon A. Müller2 and Ian Snowball3

Abstract

Arising from: S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler & J. Beer Nature 431, 1084–1087 (2004); Solanki et al. reply.

To put global warming into context requires knowledge about past changes in solar activity and the role of the Sun in climate change. Solanki et al.1 propose that solar activity during recent decades was exceptionally high compared with that over the preceding 8,000 years. However, our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today.



Then we can take the most recent review of solar effects, which you have seen multiple times already...


Review
Nature 443, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
P. Foukal1, C. Fröhlich2, H. Spruit3 and T. M. L. Wigley4

Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.


And then Solanki's study doesn't look so impressive.



Many factors are presently happening and which do affect the climate on Earth and other planets in our solar system, yet some just want to dismiss all of these facts and instead want to put their faith on their claim that "it is all mankind's fault"...


There are 60 or so planets and moons. How many are showing this apparent solar system wide warming?

Pluto (increased pressure indicative of temperature that is probably seasonal)? Jupiter (actually storms which have increased temps in one area)? Mars (a bit of one ice-cap from a 3 year measurement but not elsewhere)? Triton (likely because it is entering its summer orbit)?

So we have two localised to an area on the planet, and two likely due to orbital effects. All of these are based on highly restrictive data. Maybe one I've missed.

If you can show me that around 50-60% of planets and moons are warming, I might be impressed...


and do i need to remind you again about other reports done in 1978 where scientists predicted Climate Change due to an interstellar cloudlet we would be encountering in the near future?...



We've already been over the ISD cloud business. All the current research suggests a period of cooling, not warming, with increasing ISD.

Increasing cosmic rays - cooling

accretion of dust - cooling

mono-atomic hydrogen - likely cooling due to ozone effects.


[edit on 7-3-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
That we are heading for a climate change is not longer speculation but a possible reality that is starting to affect us in our live time . . . our generation will see the events at least the part of it . . .

Instead of bickering about who is at fault for the climate changes we should concentrate on how to preserve our species that very well may become in danger . . .

One of the reasons that disasters kill so many humans in this time of modernization . . . is due to the arrogance of humans thinking that they know it all . . . when in truth we are just speculating and predicting all the time.

When it comes to nature is not sure things . . . only when natural disasters hit us . . . then we are stupefied by the results . . .

Is nothing to stop nature that man kind can implement but we can minimized the results of disasters when it comes to lives . . .



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
That we are heading for a climate change is not longer speculation but a possible reality





posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by marg6043
That we are heading for a climate change is not longer speculation but a possible reality




Earth have cycles natural cycles they repeat themselves every so many thousands of years, man has suvived the last few . . . or we will not be here to tell.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Climate Change is real. The solutions being offered by the Globalist elite are not real solutions.

Beware Solutions that Tax you, restrict your liberty, deprive you of property, and empower bureaucracies.

Does Humanity contribute to climate change? I think the answer is yes - to what degree is subject to debate.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
You want details of the report, OK. But with all the knowledge on this thread I would have thought you guys know it all. Forgive me but ignorance in the presence of arrogance pisses me off big time.


Ha Ha Ha Ha Gotcha!

Here it is:

ptonline.aip.org...

This is a key part:

According to Bryden and coauthors, the 1957 transport in a layer shallower than 1000 m was 22.9 ± 6 Sverdrups (1 Sv = 106 m3/s) compared with the transport of 14.8 ± 6 Sv in 2004. The ± 6 Sv represents an uncorrelated error of each measurement. Bryden subtracts the two quantities and presents the results as 8.1 ± 6 Sv (instead of 8.1 ± 12 Sv or ± 8.5 Sv, depending on the character of errors), which is an incorrect result. It is a mystery how such an error was missed by Levi and by the editors and reviewers of the original paper.


Bryden was embarrassed by the seemingly simple mistake.

One post I read here last year stated that he knew 2 things about global warming were true and this was one of them. Don't remember the other one. That probably wasn't true either.

Your turn...



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CradleoftheNuclides
You want details of the report, OK. But with all the knowledge on this thread I would have thought you guys know it all. Forgive me but ignorance in the presence of arrogance pisses me off big time.


Ha Ha Ha Ha Gotcha!


That's not a scientific report, it's a letter. I tend to follow peer-reviewed work, not letters to journals.

Generally, when you make a claim, you should support it. By linking the montreal event and an article, I had an idea which paper you meant....just nice to know for certain, otherwise you are expecting me to do the work for you, bit like the probability business.

So, yeah, looks like it could be a schoolboy statistical error (depends on the type of error range, independence of error etc), I'm sure you can sympathise, lol. If it is an error, I'm sure Bryden is embarrassed, but his post-doc will be pretty much horrified - I'm sure they wrote the article, PIs tend not to. This was actually picked up by people as soon as the article was made public (it was noted in comments on the RC website).

From what I gather, Bryden gave a presentation at the RAPID conference in november last year and updated his work with measurements since collected - his own work shows that the MOC is not slowing. The current data shows the transport to be at 18Sv, up from the last measurement. Thus, you are not stating anything new as far as what the current data shows.

So, do you think making mistakes in articles is enough to completely disregard the whole shebang? Just wondering...

[edit on 7-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Pluto is warming as it has been reciding farther and farther away from the Sun, and you can't claim that "just because there is warming in other planets in some areas, but other areas we don't see such changes, that it means that you are right.

Remember the last two links and graphs i gave from NASA show that the southern hemisphere of Earth is gaining ice mass... is that proof that there is no warming on Earth?...

BTW, i have already posted several times and in different threads where even you have participated information as to the changes happening in our solar system, but for some reason you keep trying to dismiss all this data and facts...

BTW, you can't claim that because the research data from some scientists does not coincide with others means that you are right, because the oposite is also true.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Pluto is warming as it has been reciding farther and farther away from the Sun, and you can't claim that "just because there is warming in other planets in some areas, but other areas we don't see such changes, that it means that you are right.


Muaddib, are you saying that some astonomers are not suggesting this is likely due to its elliptical orbit and inclination, and therefore a seasonal effect? Another possible explanation, raised by researchers, is internal activity (e.g. volcanic - just like for Triton).


Remember the last two links and graphs i gave from NASA show that the southern hemisphere of Earth is gaining ice mass... is that proof that there is no warming on Earth?...


Of course it isn't. We have fairly restricted data from antarctica, recent data shows increasing loss of antarctic ice using measurements from GRACE, earlier studies showed a slight, but non-significant, increase in overall ice.

Interestingly, GCMs actually predict a fairly stable ice-sheet in antartica.


BTW, i have already posted several times and in different threads where even you have participated information as to the changes happening in our solar system, but for some reason you keep trying to dismiss all this data and facts...


But it's not indicative of changes that are solar sytem wide. You have a handful of planets showing changes in climate that are likely completely unrelated. We haven't even observed Pluto for a whole solar orbit.


BTW, you can't claim that because the research data from some scientists does not coincide with others means that you are right, because the oposite is also true.


I didn't claim that. I suggest that we would need further data to be sure of what exactly these proxies of solar activity actually mean. When you have such conflicting data from such restrictive data, you try to clarify the issue (and this applied to the MOC studies as well). I haven't stated that solar effects are not the highest since whenever, but you are stating the reverse.

I suggest that there are conflicting findings from solar proxies. The Be10 and C14 data conflicts, and there are conflicts within Be10 (between different records) and C14 data (between proxy and susnspot data). Thus, strong conclusions of past solar activity are not possible. What we do have is research suggesting that solar effects are not a variable that can account for the current warming trend (and that doesn't suggest solar activity has no effect on climate).

What I find interesting is that you will trumpet particular studies as indicative of particular findings, then totally ignore other research that is much more solid - e.g. multiple studies of multiple temperature proxies showing global temperatures to be the highest for at least 1000 years.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
What i find interesting is that you don't mention that research of several past Climatic Events can't account for all factors which contributed to such climatic changes either, and at times we can only account for about 25%-35% of the causes for those changes...when mankind was not around....

Future climate models are based on proxies, or "guesstimates" and assumptions that we understand 100% all the factors which contribute to Climate Change, when we don't understand all factors, and GCMs which don't take into account all factors, only give flawed data.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
What i find interesting is that you don't mention that research of several past Climatic Events can't account for all factors which contributed to such climatic changes, and at times we can only account for about 25%-35% of the causes for those changes...when mankind was not around....


If we are not even sure of past solar activity on the scales noted previously, how can we model these periods to a suitable accuracy?


Future climate models are based on proxies, or "guesstimates" and assumptions that we understand 100% all the factors which contribute to Climate Change, when we don't understand all factors, and GCMs which don't take into account all factors, only give flawed data.


They do quite well and are improving all the time.

I know of no-one who knows about this stuff who would claim they are 100% perfect, or they include every factor that is has an influence to some degree, or will be found to have an influence. When they understand how other factors work, they are introduced into the models. They get more complex and closer to reality all the time. The major issue currently is modelling clouds accurately. What they consistently show is that to account for the current warming trend, human activity is required.

Hadley Centre Model (2001) - simulated vrs observed temps (a) Natural - solar & volcano; (b) human activity - GGs and aerosols; (c) all forcings:



www.iop.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

If we are not even sure of past solar activity on the scales noted previously, how can we model these periods to a suitable accuracy?


I wasn't talking just about solar activity... i was talking about taking in consideration "all known factors" in past climatic events, they only account for a low percentage of the causes of such Climatic events.

Again, the geological record does show that CO2 levels lag temperature, in some cases the lag is up to 800 years, while at other times it has been 60-120 years.



We are just starting to notice how much methane and CO2 gases are being released from the ocean floors.


Methane Bubbles Emitted from Ocean Floor May Play Climate Feedback Role

A team of divers and scientists from the University of California at Santa Barbara observed and videotaped a "massive blowout" of methane from the ocean floor, coming from an area of gas and oil seepage associated with small volcanoes in the Santa Barbara channel. The findings, reported in the July 20 on-line issue of Global Biogeochemical Cycles, may provide answers to understanding historical climate change cycles and provide information on current climatic changes. Atmospheric methane has at least 20 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Ira Leifer, lead author and an associate researcher with UCSB's Marine Science Institute, said "Other people have reported this type of methane blowout, but no one has ever checked the numbers until now. Ours is the first set of numbers associated with a seep blowout." A nearby meteorological station measured the methane "cloud" that emerged as being approximately 5,000 cubic feet, or equal to the volume of the entire first floor of a two-bedroom house. Bubbles provide a highly efficient mechanism for transporting methane and have been observed rising from many different methane hydrate deposits around the world. While the blowout occurred in 2002, the scientists have been modeling the gas bubble since then to determine how much of it escaped into the atmosphere. They found virtually all the methane, 99 percent of it, was transported to the atmosphere from this shallow seep during the blowout.

The drivers of past climate change are not fully known
--one hypothesis is that past shifts from glacial to interglacial periods were caused by a massive decomposition of the marine methane hydrate deposits. According to this "Clathrate Gun" hypothesis, climatic destabilization would cause a sharp increase in atmospheric methane -- thereby initiating a feedback cycle of abrupt atmospheric warming. According to the researchers, this process may threaten the current climate.


www.ia.ucsb.edu...

in the present Climate Change cycle we are currently undergoing we are seeing the same thing, yet some want us to believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause for this climatic change...

The Earth has had 10 times and sometimes a bit more CO2 than it has now, and there was no "runaway global warming effect", yet we are being bombarded by claims that this time around mankind will induce such runaway global warming event.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I wasn't talking just about solar activity... i was talking about taking in consideration "all known factors" in past climatic events, they only account for a low percentage of the causes of such Climatic events.


And solar activity is not a known factor? If we are not sure of the activity just a few thousand years ago, how can we accurately account for this known factor?

If you are trying to make a point try to be clear - what factors, what climate events...


Again, the geological record does show that CO2 levels lag temperature, in some cases the lag is up to 800 years, while at other times it has been 60-120 years.


Does that prove that CO2 does not have the ability to drive climate?

Past climate events didn't have billion upon billion tonnes of greenhouse gases which had been locked up for millions of years being released in less than 200 years and various other important human effects...

Try throwing that extra blanket on your bed when you sleep tonight...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

And solar activity is not a known factor? If we are not sure of the activity just a few thousand years ago, how can we accurately account for this known factor?

If you are trying to make a point try to be clear - what factors, what climate events...


I guess i am going to have to chew it for you. Does someone chew your food before you swallow it too?...

You among some people are trying to claim that because all known natural factors that are used in climate models do not account for the changes seen, that it has to be anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are causing the current climate change.

Yet you don't mention that all natural factors taken in consideration for models in past climatic changes, cannot account for those changes either.

It is an unfounded claim that it is the anthropogenic factor which is causing temperatures to rise, more so when the geological record shows that CO2 lags temperature.



Originally posted by melatonin
Does that prove that CO2 does not have the ability to drive climate?


It proves that rise in CO2 levels is an effect of temperature increases.



Originally posted by melatonin
Past climate events didn't have billion upon billion tonnes of greenhouse gases which had been locked up for millions of years being released in less than 200 years and various other important human effects...


and the fluctuation of CO2 levels from the oceans, absorbing and releasing CO2 is from 10 to 100 times the amount of anthropogenic CO2 being released....

The Earth is not a closed system like some apparently want to claim...


Originally posted by melatonin
Try throwing that extra blanket on your bed when you sleep tonight...


Are you trying to give me advice in something you do every night?...

Thanks, but no thanks... i have had full control of my bladder for over 30 years...

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I guess i am going to have to chew it for you. Does someone chew your food before you swallow it too?...


Nope, I still have me teeth...

It's just makes it easier for me to work out what the hell your point is.


It is an unfounded claim that it is the anthropogenic factor which is causing temperatures to rise, more so when the geological record shows that CO2 lags temperature.

It proves that rise in CO2 levels is an effect of temperature increases.


No-one denies that. It was clear that this happened in the past.

And it was also followed by a even longer period of warming, of around a few thousand years, much longer than the original 800. What caused that?



and the fluctuation of CO2 levels from the oceans, absorbing and releasing CO2 is from 10 to 100 times the amount of anthropogenic CO2 being released....


But the ocean and land biosphere CO2 was part of a cycle. It was fairly balanced for a few hundred thousand years.

The CO2 we are releasing has been locked up out of the cycle for millions of years, along with that from deforestation. That is where the CO2 is coming from, the CO2 ain't coming from outer-space no matter how open you think the system is, heh.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
On a related note...


Abstract
The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost. A search for gas venting on the Arctic seafloor focused on pingo-like-features (PLFs) on the Beaufort Sea Shelf because they may be a direct consequence of gas hydrate decomposition at depth. Vibracores collected from eight PLFs had systematically elevated methane concentrations. ROV observations revealed streams of methane-rich gas bubbles coming from the crests of PLFs. We offer a scenario of how PLFs may be growing offshore as a result of gas pressure associated with gas hydrate decomposition.

Received 23 August 2006; accepted 20 November 2006; published 5 January 2007.

www.agu.org...

note the part that says the "warming is associated with Holocene sea level rise"...



Contrary to recent press reports that the oceans hold the still-undetected global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences.
At a press conference in Washington, D.C., on March 24, 2000, Dr. James Baker, Administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announced that since the late 1940s, there “has been warming to a depth of nearly 10,000 feet in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.” “In each ocean basin, substantial temperature changes are occurring at much deeper depths than we previously thought,” Dr. Baker said, as indicated by research conducted at NOAA’s Ocean Climate Laboratory. He was referring to a paper published in Science magazine that day, prepared by Sydney Levitus, John Antonov, Timothy Boyer, and Cathy Stephens, of the NOAA Center.

For 15 years, modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken place. Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back to haunt us. They’ve needed such a boost to prop up the man-induced greenhouse warming theory, but have had no observational evidence to support it. The Levitus, et al. article is now cited as the needed support.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...




[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Abstract
The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost. A search for gas venting on the Arctic seafloor focused on pingo-like-features (PLFs) on the Beaufort Sea Shelf because they may be a direct consequence of gas hydrate decomposition at depth. Vibracores collected from eight PLFs had systematically elevated methane concentrations. ROV observations revealed streams of methane-rich gas bubbles coming from the crests of PLFs. We offer a scenario of how PLFs may be growing offshore as a result of gas pressure associated with gas hydrate decomposition.

Received 23 August 2006; accepted 20 November 2006; published 5 January 2007.


note the part that says the "warming is associated with Holocene sea level rise"...


Which caused a thermal pulse that is propagating into the deep sea sediments. Hmmm, and we have a current period of ocean warming caused by human activity...sounds bad for the future, eh?




For 15 years, modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken place.


Makes Hansen's climate model look more impressive, seems his model overcame most of their issues



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   

In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming
(09-11-2006) - Ecrit par WILLIAM J. BROAD
Many scientists find "no systematic correspondence" between carbon dioxide and climate shifts.
In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: November 7, 2006

"It's too simplistic to say low CO2 was the only cause of the glacial periods" on time scales of millions of years, said Robert Giegengack, a geologist at the University of Pennsylvania who studies past atmospheres. "The record violates that one-to-one correspondence."
He and other doubters say the planet is clearly warming today, as it has repeatedly done, but insist that no one knows exactly why.
Other possible causes, they say, include changes in sea currents, Sun cycles and cosmic rays that bombard the planet.
"More and more data," Jan Veizer, an expert on Phanerozoic climates at the University of Ottawa, said, "point to the Sun and stars as the dominant driver."

www.fahayek.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Which caused a thermal pulse that is propagating into the deep sea sediments. Hmmm, and we have a current period of ocean warming caused by human activity...sounds bad for the future, eh?


....The increase in temperature is associated with Holocene sea level rise"... You know, the Holocene is the period for the past 10,000-12,000 years after the Ice Age, when temperatures began increasing... Learn how to read please...



Originally posted by melatonin
Makes Hansen's climate model look more impressive, seems his model overcame most of their issues


It does not, Hansen tried to erase the Medieval warming period and the Little Ice Age...that does not make his models impressive at all...


[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 19 Kilo
I was watching a show and it was talking about the rise in carbin dioxide and how all through out history the amount of CO2 had never been above 260 parts per million or whatever (im sure one of you knows i cant remember now) but just in the last 150 years it had jumped to 340 ppm kind of makes since,



Ummm CO2 emissions on the rise? How can that be so? I mean it isn't like we have umteen billions of people on the planet now breathing out CO2 on a daily basis... Anyone ever figure out how much that is per day? Never mind the other greenhouse gases we emit from the other end...

And scientists now blame cows too... seems the number of cows has increased to feed those billions of gas emitters... all that methane from cow patties...

Polar Ice Caps melting at an alarming rate, Himalayan glaciers disappearing at an alarming rate.... but hey its okay.. go ahead laugh it up


And don't pay any attention to the changes in the Sun that is the real cause of Global Warming, along with the coming pole switch that will leave our planet open to space radiation as the magnetic field approaches 0 for a period of time...

Chem trails... your tax dollars at work seeding the stratosphere with aluminum dust to help reflect that radiation... (they have no idea if it will work)

HARRP... an attempt to influence the coming changes to the weather and the ionosphere...(they don't know if that will work or do more damage either

NASA has major plans to build colonies on the Moon and Mars by 2020 so the elite will have a refuge when all hell bakes loose down here...

But its okay laugh it up... but you can bet you backside yer bot gonna get a ticket on that Shuttle to safety...

:shk:




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join