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.
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Yes, global warming to prevent an impending (read inevitable) ice age would seem to be a good thing, would it not?
I'm still kind of disappointed that I don't have a banana tree growing in my backyard in Pennsylvania yet. I wouldn't mind the shorter trip to the beach when ocean levels rise.
When the ice age arrives the levels of the oceans will fall.
It won't be for another 1,500 years.
In the meantime go take a break.
Worry about the $16 Trillion National Debt instead.
Originally posted by winnar
Originally posted by mbkennel
WTF does that have to do with climate? It is pretty interesting and probably some kind of weak force interaction with solar neutrinos. Effect on climate? As much as an effect on my beer. None.
Estimate quantitatively the magnitude of this effect in radioactive decay and the change in geothermal heating, compared to change in solar forcing from greenhouse effect.
WTF it has to do with climate I dont know. The point was we dont know everything that is going on with the sun. But apparently you know everything.
AGW is bullpuckey. First co2 led warming then it didnt and you people still say its because of a positive feedback. You cant make up your minds. Your science is weak and alarmist. Not only is the science weak but the "climategate" emails among otgher things prove its pretty much made up.
You think of yourself as some sort of pseudoscientist but you arent looking at things objectively. You just swallow them up and regurgitate them like a nauseous hooker.
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by mbkennel
Here is your homework assignment: - Heliopyhysics -
Click on Heliophysics Textbook.
- Seek The Truth - Our Sun
Originally posted by mbkennel
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by mbkennel
Here is your homework assignment: - Heliopyhysics -
Click on Heliophysics Textbook.
- Seek The Truth - Our Sun
That's great, there is heliophysics. Go physics! I'm 100% pro physics. There's also planetary geophysics and radiative transfer in the Earth's atmosphere. You know, climatologists have been looking at the Sun's influence for decades now.
www.realclimate.org...
www.realclimate.org...
www.realclimate.org...
That is why there is data from tree rings, ice core samples, the big one is geology, sediment cores, pollen counts, paleontology, archeology, and microbial proxy.
The tree-ring controversy
Many of the e-mails leaked from the CRU computers came from a particular group of climate researchers who work on reconstructing temperature variations over time. The e-mails revealed them discussing some of the uncertainties in centuries worth of climate information gleaned from tree rings and other sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Climate scientists are worried in particular about tree-ring data from a few northern sites. By examining temperature measurements from nearby, researchers know that tree growth at these locations tracked atmospheric temperatures for much of the twentieth century and then diverged from the actual temperatures during recent decades. It may be that when temperatures exceed a certain threshold, tree growth responds differently.
Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become “decoupled” in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what does this all mean? The relationship between tree rings and climate is becoming muddied by the rapid recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. For most of the past 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained reasonably stable. Now they are skyrocketing. Modern tree rings are no longer the reliable recorders of temperature they once were. It is a good thing that we now have thermometers.
1: In 1998, a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98. The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1,000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever.
The Graph
Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren’t telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the “hottest period in 1000 years,” which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed the “Hockey Stick” and becomes famous worldwide. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous “elevator scene.”
2: Steve attempts to replicate Michael Mann’s tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. A new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate, by the people who put together the tree ring data and they denounce the scientific criticism:
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by nixie_nox
That is why there is data from tree rings, ice core samples, the big one is geology, sediment cores, pollen counts, paleontology, archeology, and microbial proxy.
Here's what happens when you actually "look it up":
The real holes in climate science
The tree-ring controversy
Many of the e-mails leaked from the CRU computers came from a particular group of climate researchers who work on reconstructing temperature variations over time. The e-mails revealed them discussing some of the uncertainties in centuries worth of climate information gleaned from tree rings and other sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Climate scientists are worried in particular about tree-ring data from a few northern sites. By examining temperature measurements from nearby, researchers know that tree growth at these locations tracked atmospheric temperatures for much of the twentieth century and then diverged from the actual temperatures during recent decades. It may be that when temperatures exceed a certain threshold, tree growth responds differently.
Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become “decoupled” in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.
The data extracted from tree rings is for past data. They know what the current data is for the past few decades to 100 years. That is why it is paleoclimatology.
Though interesting point on current effects on trees.
Originally posted by mbkennel
OK, so you bring up something that you have no idea how it relates to climate is somehow evidence that the work of thousands of physical scientists over 50 years is somehow wrong. This is reveling in snide ignorance.
Physics is a quantitative, mechanistic subject of science with extremely good predictive power. You are reading words transmitted electronically because of people who understand physics.
Let me break down that radioactivity thing. The results show that there could be some weak effect which slightly alters radioactive decay rates, one presumes from interactions with solar neutrinos. (Weak force controls many radioactive decays and neutrinos interact by weak nuclear force as well). Note that the pattern is apparently seasonal. Two reasonable possibilities---the modulation is due to change of radius from Sun, or it is hemispherically seasonal due to the fact that the experimental sites have more "rock" between them and the Sun at night.
In either case, there is no evidence that there is any secular change beyond one year, so that any modulation would have been going on probably at the same rate for the last few millions of years without change. So that part of the year being higher would be counteracted with the other part of the year being lower, or if it is hemispherically modulated then as some is higher, others is lower.
And furthermore, any modulation of the radioactive decay would change only the heat flux from the decay, there is then the total heat capacity of all the center of the earth, which has a cooling timescale of many millions of years, so that even if there was some mechanistic modulation, it would be totally averaged out when the heat enters the surface area which governs climate.
So, the heat from radioactive decay that we already measure would not be altered and it hasn't been changing.
And in any case, the radioactive decay contributes a very small fraction of the heat flux to the Earth's surface, compared to that from the visible emission from the Sun, and the secondary infrared emission from the atmosphere.
In sum, that effect may be interesting for a few circumstances in nuclear physics. Climate, not a thing.
AGW is bullpuckey. First co2 led warming then it didnt and you people still say its because of a positive feedback. You cant make up your minds. Your science is weak and alarmist. Not only is the science weak but the "climategate" emails among otgher things prove its pretty much made up.
Everything in this is factually wrong.
Because some people are apparently too stubborn and ignorant to learn how a dynamical system works doesn't meant that scientists are making it up.
And every analysis of the "climategate emails' and the work referenced there has shown no scientific conspiracy or malfeasance. And there are many data sets other than those, and they show the same thing.
You think of yourself as some sort of pseudoscientist but you arent looking at things objectively. You just swallow them up and regurgitate them like a nauseous hooker.
Apparently many decades of quantitative experimentation and study using laws of physics isn't "looking at things objectively".
Why would all these scientist decide to "make something up"? The conspiracy must have started a long time ago. Roger Revelle, in an environmental report to President Lyndon Johnson, described the potential problem of noticable change in climate from human CO2 emissions. This was before there was any clear global experimental trend known of warming.