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.

 

Too soon to make major decisions about Global Warming

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
While beurocrats, politicians and policy makers try to determine GW policy at the Bali conference, it is probably too early to be making major policy decisions. Durring the next few years results of studies in progress may change entirely our understanding of GW. Check out this article in the Christian Science Monitor dated Dec. 3, 2007.

For instance, scientists in Switzerland are currently studying the effects of the sun's magnetic field on climate. The suns magnetic field has been increasing since 1900 and this magnetic field protects the earth from cosmic rays. A decrease in cosmic rays relates to less cloud cover, more sun warming and gradual temperature increases. Results of this study are not expected till 2010. This entire effect is not related to greenhouse gasses which is what the Kyoto Protocal relates to.

Also the standard greenhouse warming model is strongly questioned. The standard model states that if greenhouse gasses cause GW then the strongest effects will be noticed in the tropical troposphere (a band of atmosphere 10 miles high circling the equator). But 2 seperate scientific agencies studying this effect have found little significant warming there. If warming is not found there soon it will convincingly refute standard greenhouse warming models.

So again anthropogenic global warming is being questioned!

[edit on 9/12/07 by plumranch]




posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Major dicisions on global warming doesn't just concern what makes the tempature on our planet rise.

It also involves Polution to the air, water and earth.
And from a healthcare point of view, Major dicisions are indeed needed to prevent further polution of our planet.

I agree that there are many "unknown" factors to be discovered, witch has to do with global warming. And that the entire effect is not only related to greenhouse gasses.

But anything that helps to stop the polution of this planet is welcome in my book.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Research suggests that the sun's magnetic field has strengthened since 1900, weakening the cosmic-ray flow and reducing average cloud cover – which allows temperatures to rise. The experiments could show that the sun, not greenhouse gases, explains most global warming


Interesting. Yet at the same time increase in air-traffic has led to more contrail formation, effectively a man-made cirrus cloud. In which case though it might not be CO2, it is still human activity.

Sigh... my brain hurts. Complex situation.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Why bother waiting to see about this solar magnetism study? Wouldn't it be better to just assess the trend in cosmic rays? We have that data already.

For example, if the sun was having such an effect, then we would expect less cosmic rays. Indeed, if cosmic rays can significantly account for the current warming trend, we should see this correlate well with temperatures. As temps rise, GCRs fall, yes?

Well, lets see then....



Nope, not apparent at all. There is no significant trend in the GCR data.

So, why do we have such an article playing at stalling tactics? Who's the author? Oh, it's Ross McKitrick...



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

Hi melatonin,
It looks like they do not have a good understanding of the overall magnetic flux/ cosmic ray/ cloud cover/ temperature relationship at present. However, here is a study by the Israeli, Shiviv the shows a good relationship between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Here is another study saying that there is a good corelation. And here is a discussion of the possible doubling of the interplanetary magnetic field in the last 100 years. Also this abstract is saying that the magnetic flux around the earth has increased gradually in the last 580 years an especially in the last 50 years. There is probably a direct correlation between the magnetic field and cosmic ray levels.



[edit on 9/12/07 by plumranch]

[edit on 9/12/07 by plumranch]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I'll look at the rest in detail tomorrow, but I have seen those articles before...

However, the last article doesn't appear to show what you think it does (doubling of GCRs).

ABE: missed the edit, it's now the penultimate article.

ABE: also, you need falling GCRs, not a doubling. The data is already posted above. There is little trend in GCRs for the last 50 years. No trend, no effect. Simple.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   


There is no significant trend in the GCR data
reply to post by melatonin
 

Hi Mel,

Do you have anything on total CRs (all sources including sun and all freqs of rays)?

I made the change from CRs to mag flux doubling in 100 yrs.

Also do you have a refute for the lack of temp increase in the tropical troposphere that are anticipated in greenhouse gas models?

Thanks!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I think the GCR data is from the CLIMAX station in Colorado (Neutron monitor), so it doesn't differentiate (i.e. measures all).

There are other sources though (satellite data) which correlate well with CLIMAX.

The funny thing is that even if we can show a trend in cosmic rays, the link between them and climate is still fairly tentative (even whether warming or cooling would be the result), and even if eventually found to be robust, it wouldn't dismiss the effect of GHGs.

What amazes me is that the link between CO2 and temperature increases is robust, it's very simple physics, but some want to ignore this and throw their lot in with a very tentative hypothesis that appears to be unable to explain current warming because we see no real trend in GCRs during the past 50 years. Appears to be a case of 'anything but GHGs' for some.

As for the tropical troposphere business, there are studies which have assessed this issue:


Originally published in Science Express on 11 August 2005
Science 2 September 2005:
Vol. 309. no. 5740, pp. 1551 - 1556
DOI: 10.1126/science.1114867
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere
B. D. Santer,1* T. M. L. Wigley,2 C. Mears,3 F. J. Wentz,3 S. A. Klein,1 D. J. Seidel,4 K. E. Taylor,1 P. W. Thorne,5 M. F. Wehner,6 P. J. Gleckler,1 J. S. Boyle,1 W. D. Collins,2 K. W. Dixon,7 C. Doutriaux,1 M. Free,4 Q. Fu,8 J. E. Hansen,9 G. S. Jones,5 R. Ruedy,9 T. R. Karl,10 J. R. Lanzante,7 G. A. Meehl,2 V. Ramaswamy,7 G. Russell,9 G. A. Schmidt9

The month-to-month variability of tropical temperatures is larger in the troposphere than at Earth's surface. This amplification behavior is similar in a range of observations and climate model simulations and is consistent with basic theory. On multidecadal time scales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but it occurs in only one observational data set. Other observations show weak, or even negative, amplification. These results suggest either that different physical mechanisms control amplification processes on monthly and decadal time scales, and models fail to capture such behavior; or (more plausibly) that residual errors in several observational data sets used here affect their representation of long-term trends.


This study essentially shows:



The new data fit nicely with the models, particularly in the problematic tropics where the extra warming of the atmosphere is greatest. ''This study is significant because it removes one of the arguments that the climate skeptics have used," said Chiang.

Santer hopes his results will help move the climate change debate forward. ''Most reasonable scientists believe that we know enough now, that we've found strong causal links between human activity and the global warming we've already experienced," he said.

linky

So, it appears that McKitrick is recycling old arguments. I've seen Bob Carter doing the same in the last year. It's gets tiresome when the 'skeptics' have no new arguments.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

Hi Mel,

So now we have a study (or maybe 2) that is over 2 years old that supports the greenhouse gas model for GW and 2 other studies that contradict the model. Why should we necessarily believe the study that supports the model?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Well, they wouldn't really contradict the 'model', it just wouldn't support some of the GCMs. It's not the only article, they have a 2007 study on the same issue:


Abstract
We examine the sensitivity of modeled and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trend amplification (the ratio of T2LT “lower troposphere” to surface changes) to several sources of uncertainty. Model behaviour is robust across a large perturbed physics ensemble of HadCM3, yielding a smaller amplification range (1.44 ± 0.06) than a previous multi-model ensemble (1.41 ± 0.24). The uncertainty of inter-satellite calibration implied by available MSU T2 (mid-troposphere) estimates (σ = 0.035K) is much greater than that required to adequately resolve the trend (σ < 0.01K), or the amplification behaviour (implied amplification range ±0.95). Trend amplification uncertainty in both models and observations decreases as the timescale increases. Depending upon choice of dataset and time period, uncertainty in trend amplification estimates over 21 years lies between ±1.5 and ±0.2.

linky

So, there are two possibilities. The GCMs haven't got this entirely right. Or the data is not perfect. Both are very possible.

Even if we find that GCMs are not showing the exact effect in the tropical troposphere, does that mean we should dismiss them out of hand? I don't think so, they have also predicted many other things very well. For instance, they predict an expansion of the area of tropics, and this has been shown to be happening, but faster than predicted - so, they got it essentially correct, but not perfect.

Indeed, from this position, it might well suggest there is something amiss with the data, and the Santer analysis found this was the case (and the 2007 paper suggests it is not a great problem). The satellite data (and balloon) has been having numerous issues due to contamination by stratospheric cooling. That is accepted.

We have basically seen a retreat from obscurantist claims that there is no warming in the troposphere at all, to there is no warming in the tropical troposphere - just retreating into areas of doubt, spreading FUD like the old tobacco denial industry. They have done the same in most areas of climate science. Keep pushing the doubt until it no longer can be justified, then move to a new area, wash, rinse, repeat.

So, I don't think we are in a position to make grand claims either way on this particular issue (i.e., tropospheric temps vs. models). At most, if the data is correct and the models wrong, this would possibly reduce predictions, but to what? Lower range of 2'C for 2x, say 1.5-3'C? If not, then we have the normally accepted predictions of 2-4'C.

None of this dismisses the ability of CO2 to induce climate change due to continuing emissions. Just a need for clarification/refinement of predictions and models, which is pretty much accepted anyway. I still don't see why we should wait, it's just more stalling tactics from people using well-worn tactics. A risk analysis readily says act.

Do you really think there would be a time when these people would say - 'yes, we have enough evidence, lets act'? I doubt it...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Well, Fox News is putting up apparently the same story regarding skepticism about the greenhouse gas models and the lack of temp increases in the tropical tropospheres. A different crew of scientists are named. Here is theFox News link.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



Do you really think there would be a time when these people would say - 'yes, we have enough evidence, lets act'? I doubt it...

Hi Mel,
Apparent some in the world have decided to act now. Notably Germany has made a significant commitment to reduce GH gasses by like 20% by such and such a date. But seemingly that simply puts them at an economic disadvantage vis a vis any international competator eg. China who will probably never commit to strict GH gas reduction standards. I would imaging German manufacturers like the their automakers aren't real happy with Germany's environmentally enthusiastic politicians!

So, I hear the Bali conference has adjourned today with no significant accomplishments. What does this mean in terms of GW?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I've been over that study already in another thread, needless to say, one of their conclusions is total BS and completely unsupported by their data. I'll repost if you want me to.

....

Until we can get past worrying about economic advantages, as a species, we are doomed. Too much worrying about what the other guy is doing, rather than taking responsibility for our own actions.

We can't keep running after continuing growth and increasing capital. We should aim to make comfortable sustainable lifestyles.

Indeed, whilst other countries continue on their dependency on the finite black smelly stuff, some will be setting themselves in a position which is more sustainable. In the long-run, this is an economically and environmentally intelligent move.

But the myopics don't see this. Oh well.

I couldn't really care less, I won't be here to see where this all ends up, but I tend to care for people and society, not economies and business models.

So excuse me while I go and buy more stuff to weigh me down, heh.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Still believe in global warming? Watch this:




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Rubbish, video, video, rubbish, deniers, obscurantists, talking heads, argument by video, video, rubbish, uncertainty, doubt, doubt, lies, truth etc etc.

Come on, can't we do better than argument by youtube?

Global warming is irrefutable, just check temperature data. Causes are more complex. A bit of human, a bit of natural.

The saddest argument is the guy who said the science is incomplete, woah, fantastic insight, it will always be incomplete. Until we reach omniscience...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Well, even the pope is now taking side against Gore & Co. puppets:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terrapop
Well, even the pope is now taking side against Gore & Co. puppets


Find in his speech where he says any such thing...

I read the speech, and he says nothing of the sort.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Everyone knows global warming is caused by the sun!

What the H E L L are we supposed to do about the sun getting hotter?

I know I know!!!

Lets nuke the sun........



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Everyone knows global warming is caused by the sun!

What the H E L L are we supposed to do about the sun getting hotter?

I know I know!!!

Lets nuke the sun........


Agreed! Also all the other planets in the system are heating up. So, how the heck could we humans responsible for these effects from here. Sure, global warming exists, but we are in no way contributing to it... this story is just used by the NWO for their problem-solution trickery to depopulate the planet.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terrapop
Agreed! Also all the other planets in the system are heating up.


They're not.

Why do people keep repeating this BS?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join