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.

 

Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


It's not a full report. Just the abstract. In other words, it's a condensed summary of what the report is about.

Here's the full report.
Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget

It's a long read. Don't strain your eyes.



apc

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Thus, about 3-8% of the current greenhouse effect is due to human activity.


3-8% is due to human activity? So you're saying over 90% of the observed changes in the climate are completely natural? Am I reading you correctly? So even if we rounded up every fat beef eater and shoved them into every smokestack in the world, the planet would keep on doing it's merry thing and all we would've done is... ok it probably would've been a good thing anyway but would it have been necessary? All that money wasted on lojacks and cargo helicopters?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
3-8% is due to human activity? So you're saying over 90% of the observed changes in the climate are completely natural?


Nope, 3-8% of the current greenhouse effect is due to human activity. That is all.

Even if solar activity fell by 29% tomorrow, we would still be able to say the same thing.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Wow another surprise, the figures you quote are now where in the report you provided??????????????????? The report has to do with radiation reflection and absorption not content of the atmosphere. Two different things bucko!


As beachcoma said, that is just the abstract. The full report used to be freely available online. Indeed, I had the same link that beachcoma used, but it appears to be dead (to me at least).

You can actually calculate the percentage figures from the abstract. You would need to understand what it all means though. If you can't figure it, I'll do the maths for you.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Indeed, I had the same link that beachcoma used, but it appears to be dead (to me at least).


You're right! It's dead


Google's cache still holds a HTML copy of it:

Linky



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Google's cache still holds a HTML copy of it:


Cheers


For the helio dude, the data is tabulated on page 7. The html copy is a bit naff though.

It's easy enough to work out anyway, it just takes understanding of what terms like 'longwave radiative forcing' means, rather than relying on google science education.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Again can someone explain how a warmer climate is bad? How making 1/3 of the planets landmass inhabitable a bad thing? Growing grapes in scotland again...................


Because we depend on stability rather than rapdi change?

During the PETM event, thousands of gigatonnes of GHGs were released into the atmosphere. It resulted in rapid warming, and the extinction of many species. It lasted for thousands of years.

We appear to be emitting GHGs faster than during that event.


A green Greenland. The theory that its name was derived from a 10th century "madison ave" marketing genuis of a viking is a bit silly isn't it?


Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But that's the generally accepted view. It wasn't some sort of garden of eden during that period. There were just places that were more habitable than others. Same applies now.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by melatonin]


apc

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, 3-8% of the current greenhouse effect is due to human activity. That is all.

Nope? Don't you mean Yup? If 3-8% of the "current greenhouse effect" is due to human activity, then 92-97% is not. Correct?

If you're saying over 90% of the "current greenhouse effect" is not caused by human activity at all, then what the hell are we so worried about?

I mean first it was "global cooling" followed by "global warming" which thanks to ecopolitics became "Global warming is completely because of Man." Then it was, "Man is the primary contributor to global warming." And then, "Climate change is a natural process which we are significantly impacting and accelerating." And now you're telling me over 90% of the greenhouse effect is not due to human activity? How long until self-ascribed 'environmentalists' admit that "Climate change is an entirely natural process which man is powerless to change."

If that's the case then no wonder they gave these guys the boot. How dare they interfere with UN's global political aspirations and manipulations?!



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
So what if we aren't the cause, are we still going to sit by while the equator becomes uninhabitable, the arctic species become extinct, the fresh water fish go extinct, millions of species disappear, and we inevitably go to war over the last remaining natural resources, all because it's not our fault?

Let me ask you something, if someone holds a gun to your head, do you say "go ahead and pull the trigger, it's ok, it's not me holding the gun"?

No, because that is insanity... as is standing idle by while the planet destroys itself.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Nope? Don't you mean Yup? If 3-8% of the "current greenhouse effect" is due to human activity, then 92-97% is not. Correct?


You seemed to conflating two different things previously. So, I meant nope.


If you're saying over 90% of the "current greenhouse effect" is not caused by human activity at all, then what the hell are we so worried about?


Heh, we're at the early stages of human effects. If we make 560ppm, we would have doubled CO2, we are expected to be seeing warming of 2-4'C.

If you think that is nothing to be worried about, then fair enough. Other people disagree.


And now you're telling me over 90% of the greenhouse effect is not due to human activity?


The other 90+% has ensured we are above the level of frozen wasteland for a very long time, making it habitable.. Without a greenhouse effect we should be at an average global temp of around -20'C, IIRC. I don't see why this is any great surprise to you.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
[
Nope? Don't you mean Yup? If 3-8% of the "current greenhouse effect" is due to human activity, then 92-97% is not. Correct?

If you're saying over 90% of the "current greenhouse effect" is not caused by human activity at all, then what the hell are we so worried about?



I am looking forward to this answer myself. As a global warming skeptic I have calculated the human contribution of increased atmospheric CO2 as between 5-15%. Now Melatonin comes up with an even lower figure than I do! Amazing. The 16/106 in my signature reflects my belief that 16 PPM of the 106 PPM total CO2 increase in the atmosphere in the past 150 years is man made.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I am looking forward to this answer myself. As a global warming skeptic I have calculated the human contribution of increased atmospheric CO2 as between 5-15%.


I think we can put almost 100% of the increased CO2 down to human activity, I would be conservative and maybe say 95%, heh. But this has led to about 3-8% increase in the greenhouse effect.


The 16/106 in my signature reflects my belief that 16 PPM of the 106 PPM total CO2 increase in the atmosphere in the past 150 years is man made.


So, for most of 2000 years (at least), it stays pretty constant, then Kappow! ca. 280ppm becomes ca. 380ppm. Over at least 650,000 years, we don't appear to have breached 300ppm to any great extent, through numerous ice-age cycles. Then Kappow! We are now at 380+ppm.

Sorry, I don't buy this 16ppm lark. Thanks for clarifying the 16/106 thing though.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Thank goodness. I was afraid you were becoming a bigger skeptic than I am on
anthropogenic global warming. Now we can continue to march on, and continue to agree to disagree. Thanks for the clarification of your position; thought you had drank one too many scotches.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
anthropogenic global warming. Now we can continue to march on, and continue to agree to disagree. Thanks for the clarification of your position; thought you had drank one too many scotches.


Rioja is my poison. Or any nice red.

Just out of interest, how do you come to the 16ppm figure though?


apc

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Around and around we go. Gotta love it.


reply to post by johnsky
 

The planet destroying itself? Are you being serious?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I believe I calculated that from a D.O.E. emissions chart a few years ago. I will have a look in my files and see if I can provide this information for you later.

I must agree with others here that not allowing climate change skeptics to speak at Bali is not the way science is supposed to work. It shows how close minded, reckless and how eager the tax collectors are to begin their rape of our incomes. As you well know, quite often in science it has been the majority who was in error.

I wish I could buy you a few glasses of Rioja as we discuss our differences
on climate change. I'm sure that we would find that we have much common ground on environmental issues. I am all for environmental remediation.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
So what if we aren't the cause, are we still going to sit by while the equator becomes uninhabitable[...]


Actually the Equator will be just fine, thank you. We'll be slightly hotter and more humid, with more rainfall, probably, but we'll manage. And so will most of the wildlife here, since they're pretty much used to the temperature fluctuations. It's the people in the zones that are currently temperate but bordering the tropics that will suffer the most.

Nature is not without it's sense of irony



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Around and around we go. Gotta love it.


If that was aimed at me, I'll spell out the issue.

You said:


3-8% is due to human activity? So you're saying over 90% of the observed changes in the climate are completely natural?


These are two things that can be unrelated. Thus, 3-8% of the current greenhouse effect can be placed at the feet of apes burning stuff. All that means is that the remainder is the natural greenhouse effect (although it's not so simple due to feedbacks, plus other human sourced GHGs).

That doesn't mean observed changes in climate are 90% natural. Different things. As I said, even if solar activity dropped by some figure tomorrow, the 3-8% figure would still hold. Same if solar activity increases by the same figure.

The numbers I used relate to just one phenomena - the greenhouse effect.

Climate is not just about the greenhouse effect, I thought you would have known that. However, altering the greenhouse effect, all things being equal, will alter climate.

So, lets say that changes in the GE happened that would be able to warm current global temps by 2'C. But solar variation also reduced by a level that would result in a 2'C drop in global temps. We would see minimal change overall, no?

But both GE and solar activity would have changed. So, you were conflating two different things - overall climate change and the greenhouse effect.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by melatonin]


apc

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Dance clocky, dance!

Oh well. So how many of these scientists were bounced from the ball? 3-8%?

[edit on 16-12-2007 by apc]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


as we all know, the claim of man made global warming isn't science it's politics! The U.N. wantes a world gov. and they want to be it. They have finally manufactured a crisis that could be the vehicle they need to achive world gov. and socialist domination. they will do anything to silence opposition to their agenda. Typical socialism. Silence the message by silencing the messenger!

[edit on 12/16/2007 by rockets red glare]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join