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.

 

World on course for hottest year since 1880

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

So if you want to prove cosmic rays are driving climate now - you have to prove they are driving climate now.


Not only that. But you have to prove how and why the comprehensively well known physics of the greenhouse effect is NOT driving climate, despite direct observations of secular changes in IR emissivity in the stratosphere and related physical changes (stratospheric cooling and 'falling') as predicted by the physics.

I wish all this paleo-climate reconstruction stuff had stayed quiet and discussed only among actual scientists. It's interesting for actual science but now its being abused as raw material for deceptive propaganda.

Compare to the ozone-hole. What paleo-climate reconstructions were there of that? Virtually none, as it is very difficult to get suitable physical proxy data (as far as I am aware). Did that stop society. In practice, it made the question less controversial as people believed what the laws of physics and chemistry said was happening and why, and believed the prediction that lowering CFC's would help the problem. As it turned out the professional scientists and mainstream physical theory was 100% correct. As is the case with global warming, but people don't like the consequences.

There exist no human endeavors where the considered opinions of educated professionals working directly in the field are more reliable, and the opinions of the general public less reliable, than research mathematics and physical science.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by mbkennel]




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by BingeBob
That map you posted was more blue than it was red...I took blue as being cold and red being hot...

So the quote in the email (paraphrasing) "Id rather destroy information than let i leak out..." doesnt stand out to you as being a reason to question someones integrity???
There's actually more red than blue. The map projection distorts the land areas.

And no, saying in a personal email that you'd rather delete something than release it to someone who's been harassing you doesn't seem that odd to me. What a shock... scientists are real people and get frustrated.


The underlying problem is that organized data release is expensive and time-consuming, and academics don't get paid to do this. It takes on-going software infrastructure & engineering, scientific organization standardization and long-term funding. It is hard, unrewarding work. In general this type of thing is better done by national laboratories/institutions who have longer term employees and software capabilites.

For instance space agencies have to deal with this problem more frequently and so they are better at organized data set products. And so, you can get numerous climate data sets from NASA.

A point-level uncleaned (cleaning is not cheating it is correcting for known software and hardware defects), unverified data release to a propagandist is harmful. A general, broad and global data release under standards is beneficial. This takes money and labor and a will for somebody to fund it.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The point is that the email in question said the he would destroy the information EVEN IF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ORDER TO RELEASE WAS EFFECTED...

It wasnt like:

"Oh man this information is really not important so ill save us a couple bucks by just moving it to the recycle bin"

It WAS like: (paraphrasing of course for drama)

"This information would be ammunition for people who oppose us and ill destroy it if i have to to avoid it coming out!"



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Could it be The Creator or the Sun itself

Setting the controls to the heart of the Sun





Crank that 5.1 Surround !


Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun"

Little by little the night turns around.
Counting the leaves which tremble and turn.
Lotus's lean on each other in union.
Over the hills where a swallow is resting.

Set the controls for the heart of the sun.

Over the mountain watching the watcher.
Breaking the darkness, waking the grapevine.
Morning to birth is born into shadow
Love is the shadow that ripens the wine.

Set the controls for the heart of the sun.
The heart of the sun, the heart of the sun.

Who is the man who arrives at the wall?
Making the shape of his questions at asking.
Thinking the sun will fall in the evening.
Will he remember the lesson of giving?

Set the controls for the heart of the sun.
The heart of the sun, the heart of the sun.

Just a Few Articles to View & Research

Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE 03/03
www.nasa.gov...


NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming 6/09
www.dakotavoice.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

After all a large chunk of them come from the Sun anyway.

Cosmic rays don't come from the Sun. They originate from outer space, from things like supernovas, the solar-magnetic strength of the Sun dictates how many of these cosmic rays reach Earth. Let's look at the correlation between cosmic rays and temperature going back 542 million years. Graph below (from Svensmark 2007 and Shaviv and Veizer 2003).

en.wikipedia.org... (graph at the bottom of the page)

Compare the correlation with cosmic rays to the correlation with CO2 and temperature going back 600 million years (from Scotese 1990, Berner 2001). CO2 levels have been ten times higher in the past and the temperature couldn't care less.

csccc.fcpp.org...


All curves have been smoothed by an 11 year running mean (Krivova 2003).

Admittedly, I haven't read Krivova's 2003 paper. Have you? Did they take into consideration the big El Niño that occurred during 1998-1999 that pushed up temperatures? This is what the correlation between cosmic rays and temperature looks like with and without taking into consideration things like El Nino's and Volcanoes.

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...


Interestingly, poorly sited stations show bias on the cool side.

Have you seen the difference in temperature between NASA's GISS which uses only land-based thermometers and a few ocean thermometers and satellite data, i.e. RSS, HadCRUT, and UAH? Hansen's GISS data is always the highest. It's continuously breaking record temperatures and it's not surprising, since they put their thermometers next to air ports. Here's the difference between the GISS data and the satellite data (BTW, the HadCRUT is a conflation of satellite data and land-based).

HadCRUT (uses a mix of satellite and land-based) www.junkscience.com...

RSS (uses only satellite data) www.junkscience.com...

UAH (uses only satellite data) www.junkscience.com...

GISS (uses land-based but no satellite) www.junkscience.com...


Actually, for UAH, the decadal trend is upwards.

I initially said 2001. From 2001 onwards there's been no increase in temperatures statistically speaking. The big drop in temperatures that occurred during 2007-8 offsets the one that occurred during 2009. In any case, even if the temperature was increasing, it's been increasing since we emerged from the LIA 200 years ago, and besides, proof of warming is not proof that humans caused that warming. There are other explanations, like PDO, AMO, solar-magnetic effects and cosmic rays, as I've demonstrated with the above graphs.


When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2.

Solar activity was only 4% lower and CO2 levels were so much higher which makes the 4% irrelevant. And besides, there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature going back 5,000 years. The Holocene Maximum occurred when CO2 levels were lower than they are today and the LIA (300 years ago) occurred when CO2 levels were higher than they were in the Holocene Maximum. Just look at the Vostok ice core data (www.palisad.com...). Even going back 100 years there's not very good correlation between CO2 and temperature. The progressively colder times that occurred during 1945-1970 coincided with a time of intense industrial activity and rising CO2 levels. Also, there's been no statistically significant warming for almost a decade, even though CO2 levels have increased.


CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

*Slaps forehead* Dude, CO2 lags behind temperature by 800 years. To say that CO2 causes temperature to change is analogous to saying that cancer causes smoking.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Athink
...

"Climate change" cannnot explain why deep Antarctic Ocean gets less salty and less dense. Overheating of the fission heated planetary interior can... Antarctica is just about the only "heatsink" left available for the planetary interior.



i see where you are coming from.

interestingly, the North Pole is apparently subject to heavy volcanism, too

Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes

as for Antarctic melting, glaciers don't need to flow continually, even rivers have cycles, sometimes even flooding, since the ice can't just pile up indefinitely, it'll have to either flow or melt. Threshold behavior isn't out of the question, either (i mean a sudden release after a certain mass is reached).

there IS evidence of volcanic influence on the South Pole, see

Underground Volcano May Be Melting Antarctica's Ice

now, that's just a different way of putting it, i guess, internal energy causing the melt.



PS: the increase in heavy quakes is very interesting, thanks for bringing that to my attention.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Instead of slapping your forehead - why don't you try reading the actual article instead of just the headline? The reason I posted that link is because there is a VERY strong correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last half a million years. It looks like this:



But I knew if I simply posted that you would probably use it as an excuse to try and change the subject to the whole "CO2 lags temperature" nonsense - which has been explained a zillion times already: READ THE LINK.

Or in fact better yet, read this paper from 1990. And take note of this part on page 141:


The orbital forcing is, however, relatively weak when considered on an annual globally averaged basis (the total insolation received by Earth has varied by < 0.7 W/m2 over the past 160 kyr). The amplification of this forcing, the observed dominant 100-kyr cycle and the synchronized termination of the main glaciations and their similar amplitude in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres cannot easily be explained despite developments including the nonlinear response of ice sheets to orbital forcing.

The discovery of significant changes in climate forcing linked with the composition of the atmosphere has led to the idea that changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing and by constituting a link between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere climates.


The lag was essentially predicted by the very scientists you are now trying to use it to debunk. They foresaw that it would explain how such relatively weak orbital forcings could cause such large global temperature changes BEFORE this was all later verified through more ice-core drilling.

Milankovitch cycles "cause" this process by basically changing temperature enough to initiate some very strong carbon/methane feedback. But after that it is really the GHG's that do all the work, until the orbital scale tips again and begins to initiate a negative feedback.

Simply looking at a graph and seeing an 800 year lag in a 5,000 year process is not enough to explain what's really going on inside what amounts to a chicken-or-the-egg scenario. It is completely misleading.

Just because temperature happens to start the car doesn't mean CO2 can't do the driving.

So in case I haven't made myself clear enough, here's another link explaining it all, with more sources at the bottom:
www.logicalscience.com...



But I'm really glad you decided to use all that to make this analogy anyway:


To say that CO2 causes temperature to change is analogous to saying that cancer causes smoking.


I'm guessing you have no idea how ironic it is to use a smoking metaphor in the same post where you use junkscience.com as a source for your information. Do you know anything about the man responsible for this website, Steven Milloy?

He is a notorious disinformation agent on the payroll of ExxonMobil.

Milloy has a loooong history of being a paid corporate shill for various scumbag big business interests whose profits are routinely threatened by the findings of pesky science. Steve is also the head of a phony organization called "The Advancement of Sound Science Center". TASSC was created in 1993 by the Philip Morris Tobacco Company to deliberately manufacture public doubt about the hazards of second hand smoke.


So I'm sorry Nathan-D, you seem to have done a lot of homework trying to expose the conspiracy in Global Warming. But what you don't realize is how much you're the one getting played by the real conspiracy in Global Warming.

That is the Big Oil/Big Coal funded denial industry that is manipulating the facts, hacking people's emails, and exploiting minor issues in the established science to create this illusion of huge doubt and uncertainty. All this is being applied to a subject that with every passing year is in fact becoming more and more 'undeniable'.

So if you want to apply all that mental effort to exposing the supposed scam - I seriously suggest you start investigating the motives of the people telling you it's a scam.

Read this report, or go back and actually watch that video on Anthony Watts, or the 32,000 scientists. Read up on the anti-global warming philosophies of all the "libertarian think tanks" that are nothing but fronts for rich old white men trying to protect their environmentally unfriendly business interests. Go see how many of these people and organizations are then tied to the blogs where you are getting all your skeptical global warming info from.

Then come back and talk to me about the supposed "conspiracy".




PS one last thing since I can't resist math:


Solar activity was only 4% lower and CO2 levels were so much higher which makes the 4% irrelevant.


"Only" 4% of Solar activity amounts to 0.04 x 343 W/m^2 = 13.72 W/m^2.

Radiative forcing from a CO2 doubling is 3.7 W/m^2 and, as you yourself pointed out on another thread, this relationship is logarithmic. So say at 4000 ppm the radiative forcing is around 5.35 x ln(4000/280) = 14.22 W/m^2.

This hardly makes the 4% "irrelevant" now does it?

But this is exactly why the real scammers don't actually do the math or bother with the details. They just point to the "800 year lag!" or claim "it's only 4%!" and hope no one notices how full of sh** they are.


[edit on 29-7-2010 by mc_squared]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

very strong correlation over the last half a million years.

There is a correlation, but you're stretching it somewhat by saying it's "very strong". The thing is, we already know that higher temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise. There is 50 times as much CO2 in the oceans than the atmosphere and it's simple chemistry that when the temperature of the oceans increase their capacity to dissolve CO2 decreases and when they cool their capacity to absorb CO2 increases, and it's the reason why CO2 follows temperature. So once again, the cause and effect link is most likely the other way around. Therefore, it's no surprise there's a correlation over the last million years as glaciological records show, in fact, it's utterly predictable. On Earth, higher temperatures raise CO2.

Problem is, as the previous graph I posted shows, after 5 million years, the correlation breaks down. Also, the Vostok ice core data clearly shows that the temperature has risen as CO2 has decreased and visa versa over the last 450,000 years, so whatever warming effect CO2 has, it's clearly no match for other climatic forcings. I posted a graph demonstrating this, but you ignored it so I'll post another one. joannenova.com.au... See how temperature increases, even though CO2 decreases, and not just for a fleeting decade, but over thousands of years.


READ THE LINK.

Frankly, I'm fed up of you linking me to green-funded propaganda sites, like Sceptical Science. If you understood the science you would just explain it to me, instead of constantly linking me to these sprawling websites.


And take note of this part on page 141.

Sorry, I haven't got time to read 141 pages.


The lag was essentially predicted by the very scientists you are now trying to use it to debunk. They foresaw that it would explain how such relatively weak orbital forcing.

The Milankovitch effect is anything but "weak". It's why we enter ice ages and interglaciations in the first place. They happen like clock-work every 115,000 years.


to initiate some very strong carbon/methane feedback.

Positive feedback from CO2 is speculation with no relevance in the real-world. If you've read the IPCC's AR4 they list WV and clouds as the biggest feedbacks (see here: jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...). Also, see IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 page 632, or Hansen et al 1984. These increases in GHGs should theoretically create a hotspot 8-12km above the tropics, but no hotspot has appeared, according to 20 years of radiosonde observations and satellite data (see the US CCSP 2006 report, chapter 5, page 116 or the NIPCC report page 7 and page 8) which means there is no feedback amplification from WV and no increase in GHGs.


It is completely misleading.

The graph was 15,000 years. Not 5,000. And it's not misleading. It's self-evident. The Vostok ice core data clearly shows that CO2 has shifted consistently and the temperature doesn't care. This is simple stuff, providing you aren't brainwashed.


doesn't mean CO2 can't do the driving.

Any evidence (apart from computer models) that CO2 between 380ppm-5000ppm has ever pushed up temperatures?


He's a disinformation agent.

You're looking for motivations, I'm looking at the evidence.


forcing from a CO2 doubling is 3.7 W/m^2 and, as you yourself pointed out on another thread, this relationship is logarithmic.

Any evidence that climate sensitivity is 3.7CW/m^2? The logarithmic effect of CO2 is, very, very strong, so strong in fact that most of CO2's warming comes from the first 20ppm. This graph is deduced from a climate sensitivity of 0.15CW/m^2, by Lindzen using ERBE satellite data: joannenova.com.au...

Cue ad hominem attacks on Lindzen.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Global Warming is defined as the increase of the average temperature on Earth. As the Earth is getting hotter, disasters like hurricanes, droughts and floods are getting more frequent. But it is not only about how much the Earth is warming, it is also about how fast it is warming. There have always been natural climate changes – Ice Ages and the warm intermediate times between them.
Extreme weather conditions, changing agricultural yields and increase in the disease vectors are some of the other effects of global warming. Deforestation, being the primary reason behind global warming, we need to show greater concern towards the felling of trees. We need to take quick measures on preventing deforestation so that we can hope for an environment conducive to live in.
Trees play a vital role in the equilibrium of the ecosystem. Deforestation is a process of cutting trees to make space for pastures or for industries and households of the ever-increasing human population. Excessive cutting of trees for urban use and other purposes is detrimental to the environmental balance. It is needless to say that deforestation has several adverse effects on the environment.
Clearing of the forest cover has a contrary effect on the environment. It results in an increase in the amount of carbon and other greenhouse gases in the environment. Burning of forests results in the emission of a large amount of carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases like the oxides of nitrogen and methane are known to trap atmospheric heat, thus increasing the average temperature of the Earth’s surface. This increase in the temperature near the Earth’s surface and oceans is termed as global warming.
www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   


The Milankovitch effect is anything but "weak". It's why we enter ice ages and interglaciations in the first place. They happen like clock-work every 115,000 years.


So, explain in your understanding the physics of the Milankovitch effect, and why it influences climate.

What is the radiative forcing, and climate response?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Have you seen the difference in temperature between NASA's GISS which uses only land-based thermometers and a few ocean thermometers and satellite data, i.e. RSS, HadCRUT, and UAH? Hansen's GISS data is always the highest. It's continuously breaking record temperatures and it's not surprising, since they put their thermometers next to air ports. Here's the difference between the GISS data and the satellite data (BTW, the HadCRUT is a conflation of satellite data and land-based).


The idea that satellite and ground measurements are in sharp and secular disagreement is false.

en.wikipedia.org...:Satellite_Temperatures.png



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 



Frankly, I'm fed up of you linking me to green-funded propaganda sites, like Sceptical Science.


I have just given you direct proof that your links are coming from obvious disinformation sources, people who are literally being paid by large corporations to spread lies and obfuscate the science - and you're accusing skepticalscience.com of being "green-funded propaganda"??

Which part is propaganda - the part where they back up all of their statements with multiple sources and provide links to each and every peer-reviewed paper they get their information from?



So...are you frankly fed up with me linking you to all this because it's propaganda - or because you frankly have no answer for it, and the cognitive dissonance ringing in your ears is frankly getting too uncomfortable?


You know what - we can just stop here because we've clearly reached the climate denier event horizon anyway. I've seen it happen to every single one of you I've ever tried to have an honest discussion about this with.


Your arguments have hit a brick wall called reality and you don't know how to handle it, so now you're going to just suck yourself into the black hole known as willful, ignorant denial rather than face the possibility everything you've spent so much time reading up on is the actual lie.


And no I'm not looking for motivations while you're looking at evidence. I'm simply trying to explain to you from my experience looking at both sides of the evidence that what you're concentrating on so unquestioningly has been deliberately skewed and manipulated by people who are indeed motivated by very dirty agendas. I have already shown you several explicit examples of how they've done this. But you seem very eager to dismiss all that as if it's somehow irrelevant when in fact it is critical to this entire conversation.

And it's funny because in the same post you point out I'm ignoring important information and yet you refute my points with statements like this:


Sorry, I haven't got time to read 141 pages.


I didn't ask you to read 141 pages. If you'd bothered even looking at the paper I linked, you would've noticed it's 6 and a half pages. They simply happen to appear between pages 139-145 of one of the most prestigious journals in all of science. But I even went and looked up the two important paragraphs in those 6 and a half pages and posted them for you. Clearly you didn't read them because otherwise you wouldn't be making up stuff like this:


The Milankovitch effect is anything but "weak".


Ummm...let me repeat the first line quoted from that paper:


The orbital forcing is, however, relatively weak when considered on an annual globally averaged basis (the total insolation received by Earth has varied by < 0.7 W/m2 over the past 160 kyr).


But yeah, I guess it's "anything but" weak because, well...you know - you say so...



Here's one part you actually did get right though:


It's why we enter ice ages and interglaciations in the first place.


Exactly. It's how we enter them. That was the very thing I tried to explain to you in the last post. The mechanisms that amplify and distribute them globally after we enter them are an entirely different story. They rely on feedback cycles and atmospheric GHG's.

And yes I know water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas and yes it's true CO2 has not always correlated perfectly with the temperature record.

You know why?

Because there are indeed other drivers of climate too. Some of them have even been *gasp* more important than CO2.

But does this somehow prove that carbon dioxide can't affect climate? Let me ask you this - since smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer does that mean it's a good idea to start filling your house with asbestos?


So c'mon, stop playing these pointless games. I'm ignoring your fantastic charts and graphs because they are a waste of time. These are nothing but cherry-picked red herrings the denialists purposely throw into the mix since their M.O. is to try and obfuscate a debate they know they can't possibly win.

The only question that really matters in the end anyway is whether or not CO2 and other man-made GHG's are driving climate NOW.

And it is not only the best answer we have, it is the ONLY answer we have.

Cosmic rays simply don't cut the mustard. Does El Nino or a volcano explain how cosmic rays can't even properly correlate with cloud cover, or how they also lag temperature? At least CO2 has the feedback excuse: I'd love to see how something like that can apply to whatever's coming from outside our atmosphere.

So the fact remains there is NO orbital cycle, NO solar variation, NO cosmic ray theory, NO PDO, no magical combination of all of the above that can adequately explain what we've seen, particularly over the last 40 years. Meanwhile the connection between global warming and an enhanced greenhouse effect - something that was predicted over 100 years ago - keeps getting stronger and stronger and stronger.

And no matter how much you want to think you can debunk ALL this with some wishy-washy concern over tropospheric hotspots, or Richard Lindzen's insane calculations - it doesn't change the fact there is an unbelievably massive amount of:
mathematical,
theoretical,
historical,
experimental,
circumstantial,
analytical,
and most of all empirical evidence for AGW that continues growing everyday.

But yeah, have fun pretending all that doesn't exist in your wonderful black hole. There's a reason they call it climate denial.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I got tired of the same old same old . Its hot when it should be cool, its cold when it should be warm .People dying from heat while others dying from the cold .Hot where it should cold and etc etc .
I like the suggestio someone made earlier. the 90% who know whats going on go out and come up with the solutions to correct the problem .I will take request for weather dances but you have to be spysific as to where your location is and the need . I wouldnt want to send rain to the wrong place and frig up a good hockey game .

As La Niña takes hold in South America, we are seeing something I’m not sure I have ever seen before. Temperatures in some parts of the Andes Mountains of Bolivia are forecast to average below -5C this week. wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


Yeah another awesome piece of spin by Anthony Watts & Steve Goddard, two of the biggest climate sheisters around.

You realize Bolivia is in the Southern Hemisphere where it's currently the dead of winter, there's a La Nina right next door, and that particular location where it could drop to as cold as a whopping -5C (not Fahrenheit) is at the very bottom tip of the country and also high in the Andes Mountains.

In fact that spot is very close to Laguna Verde, which is at 14,000 ft.

Here are some pics I found just by googling up the region:







So -5 must really be unprecedented huh? These guys are really getting desperate for any sort of anti-global warming propaganda they can muster it seems...


By the way there are plenty of awesome solutions that have already been come up with. The only thing we have to do is actually implement them:






posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   


I have just given you direct proof that your links are coming from obvious disinformation sources, people who are literally being paid by large corporations to spread lies and obfuscate the science - and you're accusing skepticalscience.com of being "green-funded propaganda"??


Those kind of deluded wingnuts have (quite ironically, and likely unkowingly given antiintellectualism) taken up and made into standard-operating procedure one of the central tenets of the post-modernist left: there is no actual truth, it is only socially conditioned by whomever has the most powerful propaganda.

So, they think (not explicitly but in fact): scientists must all be pushing their own institutional propaganda to gain power for their side so we better do the same, and since we're richer and more powerful we deserve to win.


[edit on 30-7-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 30-7-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

I have just given you direct proof that your links are coming from obvious disinformation sources

You don't have any actual evidence that the aforementioned scientists are "disinformation agents" hired by big corporations. Just baseless accusations. It's the same old 'instead of addressing the evidence we'll just attack the character' mentality. I hope that your views about AGW aren't shared throughout the majority of this forum, because that would be sort of frightening. What sort of forum have I unwittingly stumbled into? Given your impressive two star rating (which obviously reflects your brilliantly factual post), that would seem the case.


Which part is propaganda.

You've been tricked by the spin. If Real Climate or Sceptical Science had empirical evidence it would be all over their site. Instead they just repeat how there's "overwhelming evidence" and give putdowns for sceptics until it becomes a mantra and the links they provide don't show empirical evidence that adding more carbon to the atmosphere will catastrophically heat the planet. At least, I've not seen any.


But yeah, I guess it's "anything but" weak because, well...you know - you say so

If the Milankovitch cycle was weak the temperature wouldn't plummet and rise by 7 degrees every time the phenomenon occurs. It has been clearly demonstrated that during each of these Milankovitch warm spells the CO2 in the atmospheres increases. Ergo, it is evident in these cases that a rise in CO2 is a consequence of the warming during these cycles and not the cause. And the simplest explanation is that the oceans release more CO2 as they warm and suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere as they cool. This is why we get a correlation, because temperature drives CO2. Given the fact that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years it cannot conceivably be a causative.


They rely on feedback cycles and atmospheric GHG

The AGW theory says that more CO2 in the atmosphere will force up temperatures and create a positive feedback loop from water vapour which will further increase temperatures but we don't see that in the ice cores and neither can we detect it over the troposphere above the equator. It's the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming.




Because there are indeed other drivers of climate too. Some of them have even been *gasp* more important than CO2.

You might want to write to the IPCC and ask them to issue a retraction and clarification because according to the IPCC human-CO2-emissions are 13.8 times more powerful than natural focrings. That would suggest that CO2 rules the climate. You can see the net forcings here in the IPCC's AR4 report, page 4. They attribute 10 forcings to anthropogenic influences, trivialise solar activity and don't take into account things like forcing of natural water content which contributes 95 percent of the global GHG effect.




does this somehow prove that CO2 cant affect climate?

I never said that carbon can't effect the climate. The question is, will adding more carbon to the atmosphere significantly push up temperatures? And the evidence would seem not.


historical

Correlation is not causation, and we already know why there is a correlation, albeit a weak one - because CO2 follows temperature. This is not proof of AGW.


empirical

You're linking me to YouTube videos? I had a debate with Greenman a few weeks ago on his 800-year lag video and trumped him on every point. I can't be bothered to debunk his video, besides, these are only inherently structurally limited 4000 letter captions and I have no space left. Probably for the best though, because being on this site has lowered my IQ quite substantially.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   


If the Milankovitch cycle was weak the temperature wouldn't plummet and rise by 7 degrees every time the phenomenon occurs. It has been clearly demonstrated that during each of these Milankovitch warm spells the CO2 in the atmospheres increases.


yes.


Ergo, it is evident in these cases that a rise in CO2 is a consequence of the warming during these cycles and not the cause.


no no no no no no no no!

This is lawyertalk, not physics. Global warming from CO2 does not rely on a time series correlation and nothing else, it relies on mechanistic physics.

a) we KNOW what the forcing contribution towards radiative forcing from Milankovitch is, and it's quite small---not enough at all to explain the magnitude of the observed variations. In fact it contributes more towards changing seasonal patterns and the connection to overall climate and temperatures only happens indirectly.

b) we KNOW what the contribution towards forcing that CO2 is.

You cannot turn OFF the known physics of CO2 and turn on unknown physics of magic Milankovitch. Actual scientists have worked out how it works with specific physical detail. CO2 is a great amplifier.

c) in paleological times in question, natural processes did increase CO2 in the atmosphere.

d) In these paleological times, the fossil fuel that we are putting in the atmosphere was NOT in the atmosphere at any time.

e) If a natural process puts CO2 in the atmosphere the newly added CO2 does not act any differently from the existing CO2 and other greenhouses gases which everybody acknowledges keeps the earth warmer than an atmospheric-less rock.

f) temperature-induced emission and temperature feedback from such emission can both happen.

g) if you put CO2 from a different source in the atmosphere (fossil fuel combustion), it will act radiatively just like the other CO2.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   


You might want to write to the IPCC and ask them to issue a retraction and clarification because according to the IPCC human-CO2-emissions are 13.8 times more powerful than natural focrings. That would suggest that CO2 rules the climate. You can see the net forcings here in the IPCC's AR4 report, page 4.


Those are changes in forcings. Obviously the 1366 W/m^2 from the Sun "rules the climate" if you compare Earth to a blackbody in equilibrium with the cosmic background radiation. But that's irrelevant.



They attribute 10 forcings to anthropogenic influences, trivialise solar activity and don't take into account things like forcing of natural water content which contributes 95 percent of the global GHG effect.


That is not true. The following explains the physics:

www.realclimate.org...

Water vapor is not a forcing on the timescale of climate models, it influences sensitivity, and it has been central to climatologists for many decades.

The idea that people who do this for a living would suddenly "forget" about something that they have been measuring for at least half a century is preposterous and untrue.


[edit on 31-7-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Not in South Texas. Last year, we hit right at/ on 100 the end of May & stayed there. I don't think we've hit 100 yet this Summer (the humidity is killing, though, & it feels just about as hot). Up until around the 17th of July, we were below 95 degrees. For the first time in recent memory, we have a backyard full of lush, green grass. Usually, by mid July, we are getting patches of dirt & by September, we are mostly bare ground & stay there till Spring. The roadsides are dead brown by midSummer as well. We aren't on water rationing this year either.
Last Winter, it got cold (50s or less) in early November & stayed that way every day right up to February/ early March.

I don't really know about the rest of Texas, but far west- Sanderson, Alpine, Del Rio, have been cooler & wetter this year also.

ETA: Further South America & Australia have had an exceptionally cold (& longer than usual) Winter.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by DogsDogsDogs]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

newly added CO2 does not act any differently from the existing CO2.

Rubbish. CO2 behaves logarithmically.


we KNOW what the contribution towards forcing that CO2 is.

What is it then?


if you put CO2 from a different source in the atmosphere (fossil fuel comb, it will act radiatively just like the other CO2.

I never said more CO2 won't act radiatively. But once again, CO2 behaves logarithmically. The first 20ppm of CO2 has more warming effect than the other 367 combined.

No one who is anyone seriously thinks that CO2 by itself can cause significant warming (not even the scaremongering IPCC). The IPCC rely on feedback factors to strongly amplify CO2's minor warming effect and this feedback amplification simply isn't there. Radiosondes have been observing the temperature above the equator for 20 years (where the climate models predict the hotspot) and satellites have been scanning it for years - but we can't find it. Not even a hint. The IPCC assumes that a small increase in CO2 will create a strong positive feedback loop from water vapour and this loop will lead to dangerous warming - but apart from GIGO computer models (below) they have no evidence to support their contention.


Here are the real-world observations by radiosondes.


Without the hotspot there is no amplification from water vapour and the projected warming drops by around 60-70%. The hotspot underlies the whole AGW theory. Without the hotspot, there is no catastrophe.


CO2 is a great amplifierr.

Provide one piece of scientific evidence that shows more carbon in the atmosphere can significantly push up temperatures.

The Medieval WP (900 years ago), the Roman WP (2000 years ago), and the Minoan WP (3200 years ago) were all hotter than current temperatures and they all have one thing in common - can you guess what it is? They all occurred when CO2 was much lower than it was today (see Vostok data) which begs the question, what caused the warming back then? It obviously couldn't have been CO2. It's really simple. Temperatures have shifted consistently throughout geologic time without any abrupt changes in CO2 levels - so however way you look at it - CO2's role must be trivial. The Little Ice Age (300 years ago) occurred when CO2 levels were higher than they were in the Minoan WP. Do you agree that we need to see some measurable climatic difference in the past due to carbon in order to give the AGW theory any credit?


ra forcing from Milankovitch is, and all to explain the magnitude of the observed variations.

What evidence do you base the idea on that Milankovitch effects are '"small" and that "observed variations" can't be explained by it and other natural forcings that don't have anything to do with CO2 or positive feedback?


Water vapour is not a forcing on the timescale of climate models, it influences sensitivity, and it has been central to climatologist

The models don't even take into consideration the exact contribution of water vapour and clouds because they are immeasurable or unknown which makes them unreliable right off the bat. The IPCC are asking us to believe that a trace gas which accounts for 0.038% of the atmosphere has been the primary driving force of global temperatures since 1750 even though sun spot activity matches the temperature since 1750 a lot better than CO2.




In these paleological times, the fossil fuel that we are putting in the atmosphere was NOT in the atmosphere at any time.

Eh? That makes no sense.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Nathan-D]







 
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join