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.

 

James Hansen; Global Cooling Alarmist

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Mel, could you help me out here, this article caught my eye a while back, are they being honest?



www.heartland.org...




As a result, scientists discovered 2006 was not the warmest year in U.S. history. In fact, 1934 was the warmest year, and 2006 fell to a distant fourth. Only four of the top 11 warmest years have occurred since 1954, according to the corrected data.


Also, what if we are still coming out of the last ice age?


[edit on 24-9-2007 by Stormdancer777]




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777


As a result, scientists discovered 2006 was not the warmest year in U.S. history. In fact, 1934 was the warmest year, and 2006 fell to a distant fourth. Only four of the top 11 warmest years have occurred since 1954, according to the corrected data.


The data has again been updated IIRC. But ignoring that...

Depends how you want to represent the data. For instance, 1934 was nominally the warmest of the century for the US after the adjustment, but, in fact, taking statistical uncertainty into account, you can't really separate those at the top. I also don't think NASA had 2006 as the highest, it was 1998. Which went to a fraction below 1934, rather than its previous status as a fraction above.

I wonder why they report 2006 from top to fourth, makes it look like a bigger adjustment than it actually was...

heh

But as usual it contains misrepresentations and dishonesty.


U.S. temperature data compiled and reported by NASA since 2000 contained errors that caused the organization to falsely claim a number of recent years were the hottest or among the hottest on record, scientists have discovered.


They say this, and then fail to show that NASA made any such claims, they blab on about the union of concerned scientists, but can't seem to support the NASA stuff. In fact, this is what Hansen had to say in 2001...


In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

So, it is no wonder they can't find NASA making such claims. The change was all of around 0.02'C, heh. It made little difference to global trends or US trends. It was essentially insignificant, but you wouldn't have thought so with all the hot-air from certain quarters.

It was a pity that the GISS dudes made this boo-boo though.



This is precisely how the 'hockey stick' purporting to rewrite history--erasing the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age--was debunked, and indeed by the very same person--McIntyre," said Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


BS.

The study never erased anything. Indeed, it hasn't even been debunked, it has been further validated by several multi-proxy studies. The worst you could say about the MBH study is that the stats could have been more appropriate, when they are, it makes absolutely no difference.


Also, what if we are still coming out of the last ice age?


Ifs ands or buts. We are well into an interglacial period.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by melatonin]


apc

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
This is the scientific way. Present hypotheses, test them against the evidence. Those which conform to the evidence win the day. Others lose. But there is no shame, we need this competition of ideas.


Yet anyone who presents an alternative hypothesis is a dishonest right-wing retarded binary thinking BS blog author...

Gotta love it.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Yet anyone who presents an alternative hypothesis is a dishonest right-wing retarded binary thinking BS blog author...

Gotta love it.


Any idiot can present a hypothesis. Science goes beyond that. You test it against observations.

Thus, if someone thinks that solar activity is the major cause of warming over the last 30 years or so, we examine the data for solar activity and find that there appears to be minimal relationship with temperature over that period.

Therefore, we accept that and move on.

If we think that cosmic rays are having an important impact on current climate, we test that hypothesis. We find that the is no trend in cosmic rays at all. Therefore, they appear to be having minimal impact.

We accept that and move on.

Some people outside science appear to perseverate on these issues.

Anyway, the retarded binary-thinker in question is essentially saying, if humans don't cause climate change via CO2 in the past, they can't now. He's basically saying that under current ideas, only human CO2 can be used to explain climate change. This is retarded:


Of course, lost upon Hansen - and, quite frankly, the entire global warming alarmism crowd - is that if oceans were indeed so much higher three million years ago before man was emitting so much carbon dioxide, it seems quite specious to suggest that man is responsible for today's warming and sea level rise.


In short, b0ll0cks. Any variable that can sufficiently warm climate could do this, whether it be solar, GHG, a mixture of variables, maybe even right-wing hot -air. This appears to be just too complex for some.

People of a certain ideology have an issue with complexity and ambiguity remember


[edit on 25-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
HI Mel,



They say this, and then fail to show that NASA made any such claims,


I guess I should see what i can find.

So yes, we are in a Interglacial period,



Do you think we can actually change GW at this point?

And could some of the solution only cause more problems?

Here is a new concept, what do you think?

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Giant Ocean Tubes Proposed as Global Warming Fix

while they believe, this



ocean full of giant pipes that pump up cold, nutrient-rich water from deep below, encouraging surface algae to bloom and suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


other experts say this,



But other experts are skeptical, pointing out that the scheme could release more carbon than it absorbs while putting fragile marine life in danger. (Related: "Plan to Dump Iron in Ocean as Climate Fix Attracts Debate" [July 25, 2007].)


Plan to Dump Iron in Ocean as Climate Fix Attracts Debate
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Then there is this,

Planktos ultimately wants to fertilize plankton blooms, measure the carbon they capture, and sell the corresponding credits (related: "Extreme Global Warming Fix Proposed: Fill the Skies With Sulfur" [August 4, 2006]).
news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I'm quite doubtful that anything more than just reducing what we spew out is a good idea. We have a pretty poor record of meddling with nature.

Best to spend money on new energy technologies and preparation for future effects.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   


Best to spend money on new energy technologies and preparation for future effects.


I can't argue with that.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Mel, here is a new article,

www.sciencedaily.com...




Growing inside the caves of the tropical Pacific island of Borneo are some of the keys to understanding how the Earth's climate suddenly changed - several times - over the last 25,000 years. By analyzing stalagmites, the pilar-like rock formations that stem from the ground in caves, they were able to produce a high-resolution and continuous record of the climate over this equatorial rainforest.





Cave Records Provide Clues To Climate Change





When Georgia Tech Assistant Professor Kim Cobb and graduate student Jud Partin wanted to understand the mechanisms that drove the abrupt climate change events that occurred thousands of years ago, they didn't drill for ice cores from the glaciers of Greenland or the icy plains of Antarctica, as is customary for paleoclimatolgists. Instead, they went underground.


Here is what I find interesting,




For example, Partin and Cobb's records suggest that the tropical Pacific began drying about 20,000 years ago and that this trend may have pre-conditioned the North Atlantic for an abrupt climate change event that occurred about 16,500 years ago, known as the Heinrich 1 event.





"In addition, the Borneo records indicate that the tropical Pacific began to get wetter before the North Atlantic recovered from the Heinrich 1 event 14,000 years ago. Perhaps the tropical Pacific is again driving that trend," said Partin.


What does this mean the tropical pacific is driving the trend?

What trend?



[edit on 053131p://bMonday2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I have no institutional access for some reason tonight, so I can't read the original article


They should sort it out soon. I'll post again when I've actually read the article.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I have no institutional access for some reason tonight, so I can't read the original article


They should sort it out soon. I'll post again when I've actually read the article.


Alrighty, thanks.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
OK, here's the abstract:



Letter
Nature 449, 452-455 (27 September 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06164; Received 22 February 2007; Accepted 8 August 2007


Millennial-scale trends in west Pacific warm pool hydrology since the Last Glacial Maximum
Judson W. Partin1, Kim M. Cobb1, Jess F. Adkins2, Brian Clark3 & Diego P. Fernandez2

School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia
Correspondence to: Judson W. Partin1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.W.P. (Email: jpartin@eas.gatech.edu).

Abstract

Models and palaeoclimate data suggest that the tropical Pacific climate system plays a key part in the mechanisms underlying orbital-scale and abrupt climate change1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Atmospheric convection over the western tropical Pacific is a major source of heat and moisture to extratropical regions, and may therefore influence the global climate response to a variety of forcing factors. The response of tropical Pacific convection to changes in global climate boundary conditions, abrupt climate changes and radiative forcing remains uncertain, however. Here we present three absolutely dated oxygen isotope records from stalagmites in northern Borneo that reflect changes in west Pacific warm pool hydrology over the past 27,000 years. Our results suggest that convection over the western tropical Pacific weakened 18,000–20,000 years ago, as tropical Pacific2, 5, 6, 8 and Antarctic9 temperatures began to rise during the early stages of deglaciation. Convective activity, as inferred from oxygen isotopes, reached a minimum during Heinrich event 1 (ref. 10), when the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation was weak11, pointing to feedbacks between the strength of the overturning circulation and tropical Pacific hydrology. There is no evidence of the Younger Dryas event12 in the stalagmite records, however, suggesting that different mechanisms operated during these two abrupt deglacial climate events. During the Holocene epoch, convective activity appears to track changes in spring and autumn insolation, highlighting the sensitivity of tropical Pacific convection to external radiative forcing. Together, these findings demonstrate that the tropical Pacific hydrological cycle is sensitive to high-latitude climate processes in both hemispheres, as well as to external radiative forcing, and that it may have a central role in abrupt climate change events.


And conclusion:




This study demonstrates that the tropical Pacific hydrological cycle is sensitive to high-latitude climate processes in both hemispheres as well as to external radiative forcing. However, the relatively smooth character of the warm pool's hydrological variability over the past 27,000 yr suggests a limited potential for large, abrupt changes in the character of tropical Pacific variability. Nonetheless, by gradually altering the heat and salt budgets of the global oceans, the tropical Pacific may have a pivotal role in driving thermohaline circulation changes associated with abrupt climate change events. Whether the tropical Pacific coupled system acts as an amplifier or a trigger of internal global climate variability, its feedbacks on the global climate system must be an integral part of any climate change mechanism, natural or anthropogenic.


What I get from this is that the hydrological cycle of the pacific is an important feedback system of climate change in the past.

Thus, changes elsewhere, whether from internal changes or external forcing (solar etc), generally initiate changes in the cycle in this area, which then feedbacks to other areas of the globe. So, in essence, it's an important part of the mechanism of global climate change.

That's my reading, although I have to state I'm not a climate scientist.




[edit on 1-10-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   


Thus, changes elsewhere, whether from internal changes or external forcing (solar etc), generally initiate changes in the cycle in this area, which then feedbacks to other areas of the globe. So, in essence, it's an important part of the mechanism of global climate change.


Those were my thoughts.

I am no climatologist either, but I have been looking for, and keeping up on the latest, for some reason I find this fascinating.

[edit on 073131p://bMonday2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I am no climatologist either, but I have been looking for, and keeping up on the latest, for some reason I find this fascinating.


Oh, it is. I've been following climate science since about 1988, it's made great strides since then. Still lots to learn though.

When I hear that these researchers spent a few weeks in Borneo collecting samples, I reckoned I picked the wrong science, heh.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



1988 huh?

That's an interesting year, why that year?

As I recall around that time I started noticing a few things.



[edit on 113131p://bThursday2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
www.sciencealert.com.au...



Ice age only froze the North




A core from the ocean nearby supports the finding. Not only did the temperature not drop in the Southern Hemisphere during the dramatic freeze in Europe, it actually increased, and to significantly warmer temperatures than we experience today - at least 2 degrees warmer. It has been steadily cooling ever since.





"It was thought that climate change was always global, but our research shows that is not necessarily the case, in fact what happens in the north can be the opposite of what happens in the south. So if the Greenland Ice Sheet does melt because of global warming, triggering another ice age, Australia and New Zealand are the places to be," Dr Barrows said.


Now who would think climate change is always global, to me that is not even common sense.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
1988 huh?

That's an interesting year, why that year?


I had to pick my own science topic to do for a college project, and GW science argument was all fairly new then, well to me at least. I think 1987 it started to really get attention. I spent a few months trawling through science journals.

I've sort of followed the science since then, although it has never been my own area of science. The evidence was quite compelling but still fairly speculative then. It's moved on great deal in the 20 years since those days.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



Interesting, then you are quite an authority.

During that time I was deep into end-time prophecy and we were all seeing a correlation between the climate trends and biblical prophecy.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film
www.thisislondon.co.uk...'s+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do




Kent school governor Stewart Dimmock claimed the film was unfit for schools as it was politically partisan, containing serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.Lorry driver and member of the political group, the New Party, Mr Dimmock had sought a court order to ban the documentary after the Government decided to distribute the documentary and four short films to 3,500 schools in February.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Just to back up what Mel is saying here:

A VERY famous scientist once said "when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?"

I love that one ...

Thanks Mel once again for defending what scientists do. Although speaking as an Immunologist / Microbiologist (don't ask ..LOL) I spend an awful lot of sometimes well meant energy defending my science to RSC members ...LOL

Aren't tradtions great...



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I have one surefire right now solution for lowering CO2 emissions. Why don't all you people that believe that global warming is a 'done deal' and there can't be any further discourse on the subject just all commit suicide? That would cut what has to be billions of tons of CO2....hot air.....out of the atmosphere immediately! Hell, just stopping Al Gore from saving the world by flying around it in his personal jet and heating and cooling his monstrous mansion in Tennessee would have to save tons by itself. You people are bound and determined to completely negate all the advances mankind has ever made. I guess we should all move out into the yard and start eating grass and bugs to make you greenies happy. I'm not too sure that wiping mankind from the face of the earth is such a bad idea. At least it would get rid of the idiots.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join