It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In an article in the scientific magazine Nature Geosciences, the geoscientists Achim Brauer, Peter Dulski and Jörg Negendank, (emeritus Professor) from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Gerald Haug from the DFG-Leibniz Center for Surface Processes and Climate Studies at the University of Potsdam and the ETH in Zurich, and Daniel Sigman from the Princeton University prove, for the first time, an extremely fast climate change in Western Europe. This took place long before man-made changes in the atmosphere, and is causatively associated with a sudden change in the wind systems.
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more
than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:
1. Radiative forcing DF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter k; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.
Originally posted by euclid
Additionally this latest report from APS indicates in its abstract:
APS Reaffirms Position on Climate Change
American Physical Society Reaffirms Its Position that Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Climate Change
WASHINGTON, DC — American Physical Society (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
“Global warming and energy use have been on the minds of many Americans for quite some time. Recognizing the importance of these issues, the governing body of the American Physical Society announced its position on Climate Change on November 18, 2007. The Society’s position has not changed, and APS remains engaged in this issue that has considerable international consequences.
“APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed.
“Online reports erroneously implied an APS policy change. These reports did not include the disclaimer, ‘Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum,’ which was attached to the newsletter article.”
Also see this thread:
The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.
From two probes of the Uranian upper atmosphere in
November 6, 1998, we derive equivalent isothermal temperatures
of 116:7 § 7:9 K for immersion, and 124:8 § 15:5 K for
emersion, indicating that the warming trend observed between
1977 and 1983 has reversed. If interpreted as a purely temporal
change, the 1998 observations indicate a cooling rate of3Kyr¡1.
This cooling rate cannot be caused by radiative processes alone.
Thus, the observations presented here strongly suggest that there
is a nonradiative energy sink in the Uranian upper atmosphere.
Possibilities for the sink include thermal conduction to the stratosphere,
and adiabatic cooling.
(waiting on melatonin's reply I know he'll disagree with something in all that)
Originally posted by TheRedneck
1) The science is concentrating on CO2. CO2 is not only a harmless gas in the atmosphere, but a requirement for life on earth to exist.
Compared to methane, for example, it is also a very poor 'greenhouse gas', absorbing only 6% of UV energy in the absorption spectrum specific to it.
While it would be ludicrous to ignore the possibility that CO2 has an effect, it is equally ludicrous to assume that no other phenomena could be responsible.
2) A great deal of energy is spent on propagandizing of the 'facts'. Every attempt is made to place blame for any observed temperature increase, no matter how small, isolated, or temporary, on CO2 emissions. Any suggestion of other sources of temperature anomaly are ridiculed and/or ignored. Witness the posts on this thread.
3) The models used to make dire predictions are not public. While the results are published regularly, the details of how these reports are generated seem to be especially difficult to locate. As an example, the data from Mauna Loa observatory concerning CO2 levels detected are easily found, yet little to no data on the emissions from Mauna loa (the volcano) itself exist.
The annual quiescent CO2 emissions from the summit of Mauna Loa volcano between 1959 and 1999 were calculated from atmospheric measurements made 6 km downslope at the Mauna Loa Observatory MLO. Volcanic CO2 is trapped beneath a tens of meters thick temperature inversion at night and produces excess CO2 mixing ratios of up to tens of ppm above background. Measurements of the excess CO2, as a function of height above the ground, and wind direction are combined with the downslope wind speed to estimate the total flux of CO2 trapped near the ground, which provides a minimum estimate of the total volcanic emissions. The CO2 emissions were greatest shortly after each eruption and then decreased exponentially with 1/e time constants of 6.6, 6.5, and 1.6 years for the post-1950, 1975, and 1984 periods. Total emissions for these periods were 3.3, 1.9, and 2.5 x 10^8 kg, respectively. The distribution of quiescent volcanic CO2 with wind direction shifted eastward after the 1975 and 1984 eruptions by a few degrees, coinciding with a shift in eruptive activity from the SW rift (1950) to the NE rift (1984). A broadening of the distribution in 1993–1995 and 1998 is interpreted
as indicating a new source high on the SW rift.
4) A great deal of money is being made due to the 'science'. I do not refer here to scientific funding, but to private investments/businesses that have great stake in the findings of any research being performed. Not only is this a serious conflict of interest, but it damages credibility as to the results of the research. It is very common for those in financial conflict with research, or for those with a vested interest in specific results, to produce faulty and/or misleading data in order to further self-interests. This is simple human nature, and the reason serious experimentation is carried out in double-blind experiments.
5) The leading spokesmen are both financially involved with the results and ignorant of the science. Yes, I refer to Al Gore here. Yes, I know he is not the only proponent of GW. But this still damages the credibility of the science. He is one of the largest individual producers of CO2 in the world today, by choice, and yet he advocates a system tyo 'punish' those who produce too much CO2. Leadership by example? Certainly NOT!
6) Taxation is being proposed as a solution, even though no method of using the collected taxes to avert the proposed problem is presented. The only way this would work is if the problem was a lack of money by the taxing authority. It is not; the stated problem is CO2 levels.
7) Other proposals besides taxation, more apt to resolving the stated problem, are ignored and/or opposed by those advocating the taxation as a solution. Recently, a CO2 scrubber for personal use was introduced by Columbia University. It is reported to remove one ton of CO2 per day, resulting in the removal of one year's worth of personal CO2 contribution in 18 days. It is opposed by Greenpeace, a leading supporter of carbon cap/trade, for stated reasons that it would lead to more use of fossil fuels.
8) The problem is obviously one of global proportions, since there is no separation between one area of the atmosphere and another, yet proposed treaties stated to address the problem ignore certain areas and concentrate on others, even though the areas ignored are developing CO2 production capabilities at the highest rates of any countries. Yes, I am referring to Kyoto. Yes, I mean China/India.
9) A 'consensus', although far from extant, is said to be the final word. There are two problems to this: one, a consensus indicates a lack of serious oppositional claims, where in reality there are claims to the contrary of the 'established' opinions. Secondly, a consensus does not always equate with fact. Witness the previous scientific consensuses throughout history that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that 'bad blood' was the cause of disease (and that the cure was bleeding the patient to death), and that the speed of sound could not be exceeded. All of these things at one time were believed by the scientists of that time, yet all have been disproven and are now summarily dismissed.
The majority of wind farms are located in the Northern Hemisphere as well. Coincidence? Maybe, probably even, but shouldn't that at least be considered?
All the energy in the planet is said by science to be supplied by the sun, but every attempt to mention the possibility that the warming of the planet (along with the observed warming of other solar planets) is dismissed out-of-hand. Is it not logical to investigate any such possibility thoroughly, especially since no one has yet proposed how an abundance of CO2 on earth can create warmer temperatures on Saturn.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
1) The science is concentrating on CO2.
I'll answer just for you.
Not sure why UV absorption would be relevant. It is a weaker GHG than CH4. However, it has a longer half-life and is being released in larger quantities.
No-one in science does. A quick perusal of the IPCC report would show this. However, CO2 is a very important contribution, and will be so in the future.
Nah, not true. For example, no matter how many times the anomalous 1998 temperature is associated with the strong El Nino, 'sceptics' ignore this and use it as a chance to claim warming is over. Indeed, they also ignore the presence of La Nina for this past year for the same game.
Climate science is well aware that climate is a multicomponent chaotic system.
Scientists are clever-clogs. The article is a good explanation of what goes on at Mauna. If you want it, just ask.
There would be a conflict of interest if the people who had a great stake in the businesses and investments funded the research. However, in the US (and elsewhere) the funding generally comes from government agencies - a government which is well-known to be much less than willing to accept the findings from its scientists. Indeed, one of these agencies had become so politicised that it attempted to gag one of its foremost scientists, and the GOP was advised on FUD by Luntz.
However, the links between industry and many of the deniers is well-established. That is a conflict of interest. Pity Exxon et al don;t just bother funding science, rather than think-tanks who spread media FUD and BS.
Yeah, it eats up lots of energy, up to around a 1/4-1/3 of the energy produced by a plant for large scale systems.
That's a choice we would have to make - less CO2, but use resources faster. Not ideal, but better than nothing. Ultmately, who cares what greenpeace think? I don't. I'd have increasing numbers of nuclear power stations myself, sure they'd hate that too.
Aye, t'is a problem. But we also have to weigh the rights of less developed countries to develop comparable to western societies. If we just tell them to live in the squalor they have been, they will ignore the issue all together.
Heh. Suppose this is an off-shoot of the the 'they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at the Wright brothers etc'. And in response, I say 'they also laughed at Coco the Clown'.
There are always claims to the contrary, some even still claim the earth is flat. However, very few of them are worth a second glance. It will always come down to evidence, not some dude being contrary.
Could also be that a large number of really cool people died in the 60s and 70s, reducing the coolness of human society.
Indeed, the IPCC report and various studies show an effect of solar variation this century. However, solar activity appears to have been going nowhere for decades.
If you want to look at the recent sunspot activity data and draw your own conclusions a decent site is:
Individual graphs of each cycle for 1 to 20 are at: Solar cycles 1-20 www.dxlc.com...
And the last three cycles 21, 22, and 23 can be seen at www.dxlc.com...
Originally posted by Essan
If they imposed a 20% tax on petrol due to declining elephant populations would you concentrate your energies on trying to prove that elephant populations were not declining?
Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on showing that the taxes will not have any effect on elephant populations?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I do not see how the action of CO2 can be irrelevant, either chemically or energetically. CO2 does not reflect heat, it absorbs light from the UV spectrum and converts it to heat, rather than allowing it to reflect back into space. That is the crux of the CO2 debate.
Methane also tends to oxidize in the atmosphere (not radiate, as implied by a half-life) into CO2 and H2O.
Actually, yes they do. And so does the populace, as is evidenced by this thread and the responses to a possible contributor to GW. As political as this subject has become, it is now being driven not only by science, but by (usually misinformed) public opinion.
True enough about the 1998 readings. That was an anomaly, and according to the NOAA website, the temperature averaged over a period of years is still climbing. It also shows that temperature climb decelerating into a flat curve.
I'll agree the obfuscation of reality is evident on both sides.
Here again, I agree there is obfuscation on both sides, But there is still obfuscation.
Then there is the carbon-credit scheme which allows larger companies to simply 'buy out' their competition's ability to operate, stifling competition. All of these are examples of public funding of private companies, under the guise of 'environmentalism'.
If the end result is to remove excess CO2 from the air, why worry about energy use?
You're right that we have to make a choice, but it seems that those behind this agenda want to have neither choice. If we remove CO2, we are using too much fuel. If we don't remove CO2, we're killing the planet. If you want this movement to have weight, someone needs to decide which way to steer the bus.
The simple truth is that the real agenda is to reduce fossil fuel use. Now, we can debate on that topic, but when it is disguised as environmentalism, that is outright fraud on the people of the planet.
Oh, and I like nuke plants, too.
I will agree that other countries have a right to advance technologically. But if you are going to clean up the atmosphere, it does little good to clean one area at the expense of that people, while totally ignoring other areas. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If we must clean CO2 out of the atmosphere of the planet, it must be for the whole planet. Otherwise you're spraying air freshener in one corner of a pig sty.
Agreed. So why all the concern over some mythological 'consensus'?
You said to ask, and I will. If there is no solar activity adding to the warming trend, then why are the other planets exhibiting temperature changes? I'd like to see the raw data from solar observations.
Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
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.
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.