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.
Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
The teacher in the beginning of the video is beautiful and well educated. People Global Warming is not a hoax; it is very real and we need to stop it now!
Originally posted by Recouper
reply to post by Pentothal
Hmmm, I couldn't find something like this funny. I wouldn't hold it against people who might find similar imagery funny within different context and I certainly have no bad judgment for those who are not offended by blood and gore.
All you have shown is to be ignorant of the facts. Every one of those claims you excerpted has been debunked by REAL scientists. From the claim that "95% of scientists endorse the consensus" which is a lie.
I have proven in past threads that many scientific groups are just touting the AGW bandwagon just to get more funds.
The position written in the websites of scientific groups which claim are a consensus on AGW does not speak for the majority of the scientists which are part of such groups....it only speaks about the opinions from the small groups of boards of directors which are more interested in getting more grants than in true science when it comes to Climate Change.
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that: It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
That research made by Wilson was only from 1978 -2002, and the research showed that until the end of the research the sun's output HAD BEEN INCREASING, and not decreasing like the AGW fans like to claim.
The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.
Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot frequency since 850 AD. To this end, they have combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average. The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.
These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
The solar contribution is assessed to be in the range 0.06 – 0.30 Wm–2. Note that when calculating solar radiative forcing it is necessary to scale the total solar irradiance at the Earth by a factor taking into account geometric considerations as well as the planetary albedo. Thus the RF due to a change in TSI of 1 Wm–2 is about 1/6 Wm–2, or a change in TSI of 0.7 Wm–2 since 1750 is equivalent to RF = 0.12 Wm–2. The actual variations in TSI over the past few centuries is very uncertain (see Section 4.2) and the change in TSI depends crucially on the starting date (chosen as 1750 by the IPCC to represent the pre-industrial atmosphere): choice of earlier or later in the 18th century would have given an increased solar RF. Thus the value of solar radiative forcing in the IPCC figure is largely indicative. Taking a value of the climate sensitivity parameter of 0.6 K (Wm–2)–1 suggests that a global average surface warming of less than 0.1 K since 1750 could be ascribed to the Sun.
"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales. However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the Sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it."
There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
This is the problem with people like you.. You want to claim that mankind caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but atmospheric CO2 levels have risen naturally many times in the past. Only a small percentage of that increase is anthropogenic, but again you people need to try to "scare" those who are not informed.
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg. carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.
For example the Earth's magnetic field, and the Sun's magnetic field have also been shown to affect the climate.
Desertification is mainly due to annual-plow agriculture.
domestic livestock is causing global warming from methane emissions. And through the destruction of habitat is driving extinction.
So far you haven't mentioned even 1. The cons you mentioned were only marginally related to "global warming", which we already know is mainly driven by methane from factory meat farms.
Oh noooo..... rainforests, and animals were doing fine with temperatures 3-5C higher than today's?..... Who would have thought this?...... Well, I guess ANOTHER lie of the AGWers is dead.... BTW, the above DOES NOT PROVE that CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by the AGW fans, it just shows that giant forests and animals have existed and thrived with warmer temperatures than at present.
We are living in a carbon based world, and in fact the Earth is STILL CO2 starved... It is another fact that the green biomass of the Earth, and even the oceans has been increasing, and this means MORE FOOD for animals, and mankind.
You can't have it both ways. Either you have predominantly positive feed back mechanisms which mean we will all fry or the negative and positive feed backs cancel each other out in which case you have little or no warming.
Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by Maslo
Furtermore increases in water vapour content also affects the albedo through cloud cover which is a strong negative feedback effect that is currently largely unknown and only sparesly incorporated in the current climate models.
Try thinking it through instead of regurtitating realclimate and scepticalsciense.