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.

 

Last Decade Confirmed Warmest of Recorded Science

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Dear Kalie74,

Yes they did. Now what?




posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


There's nothing there stating why or how the earth's climate changed. My questions to you remain unanswered. Also did you happen to notice this? :


The period 1850 to present is one of general warming. Figure 1 describes the global temperature trends from 1880 to 1999. This graph shows the yearly temperature anomalies that have occurred from an average global temperature calculated for the period 1951-1980. The graph indicates that the anomolies for the first 60 years of the record were consistently negative. However, beginning in 1935 positive anomolies became more common, and from 1980 to 1999 the anomolies were between 0.2 to 0.4° Celsius higher that the average for the 119 year period of study.

Many scientists believe the warmer temperatures of the 20th century are being caused by an enhancement of the Earth's greenhouse effect.


What do you think those anomalies* (they spelled it wrong) are all about?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Can you show that data?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Can you show that data?


Yes, or you can research it on your own and my opinion doesn't change anything



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I don't thing anything wrong about them, just that since the earth climate has been monitored in the last 100 years that is why people and scientist are able to pay more attention to what goes on around us.

But the truth is in the pudding, earth climate has been changing since the beginning of time with periods of more warming than cooling.

Plain and simple, nothing else to add, nothing new actually, just that we humans are more aware of it, before that we blame on the Gods, evil or supernatural forces.

Now we most blame humans because is a way that can be profited from.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


So global temperatures just change on their own?
Nothing causes it to happen?

reply to post by AQuestion
 


So you're not accepting the challenge and I can stop wasting my time?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Except the Met Office never admitted that global warming had stalled - the media made that bit up!

www.metoffice.gov.uk...


edit on 4-7-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

I'm not suggesting that anyone is able to definitively say anything, on either side. That is the whole problem when major global decisions that will define balance of resources, poverty and power for decades and generations to come are being based on science that has two very self-certain sides to it. The data is inconclusive when it comes right down to it for making projections that make sense. That is what the failures show, I'd say.

What isn't speculative, in my opinion, is that the climate is changing. How? That remains to be seen. The ice in the north seems to be melting and getting a bit less each season for what re-freezes, while ice in the south seems to be thickening, depending on reports. Maybe it's a global shift in the weather "engine" that rings the planet. Just a few degree shift south would be awfully problematic for a good % of the heavily populated areas.

Fight pollution? Yup... Good fight. Try and make global plans for planetary changes which may be natural and may well carry beyond what we consider comfortable? Perhaps.....when we're sure which way it's going and why, I'd say. Getting that one wrong would be the ultimate cosmic irony wouldn't it? It also likely doesn't require the largest government/corporate structure in history with the global carbon exchanges.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by marg6043
 


So global temperatures just change on their own?
Nothing causes it to happen?

reply to post by AQuestion
 


So you're not accepting the challenge and I can stop wasting my time?


I'll bite.

First of all, ice cores from Lake Vostok, which are among the most reputable and undisputed, show consistently that warming occurs BEFORE CO2 increases. Those cores also show substantial amounts of methane released after warming occurs as well as CO2. When the 400K year graphs are crammed down into a single graphic that can fit on a screen, you don't notice the subtle gaps of 100-1000+ years between when the warming begins, and the gases increase, which is convenient for powerpoint presentations and those who know how to skew the presentation of data to make it look like something it isn't. As they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. The data doesn't lie, and you can download the Vostok raw data directly yourself if you want to play with the numbers or try to disprove what others have failed to.

Source

Second, the Milankovitch cycles need to be taken into consideration as well. We are moving away from the last maximum, which while it might not be a major factor, does over greater periods of time have an impact on solar radiance and where it is focused, and creates warmer winters and cooler summers. Earth is also not the only planet that experiences these cycles.

Methane is more destructive of a gas in terms of climate than CO2, can trap roughly 50+ times the amount of heat, and has increased many times more than CO2 has in the last decade. There are far fewer man-made emissions behind it, and it has a much more immediate impact on temperature and atmospheric retention than CO2 does. This can't be excluded, and so far, little explanation has been given except the permafrost in the arctic, and methane deposits at the bottoms of the oceans, but neither are conclusive.

Sea ice has more to do with atmospheric circulation and air temperature than anything else. The "forcing" that you're referring to comes from hundred, possibly thousands of different sources. The feedback loops that you refer to also makes no mention of clouds, which are the largest contributor to feedback and forcing (which by the way, tends to make people believe right away that you're a man-made global warming supporter), and has ZERO models that can predict how clouds form. Additional cloud cover, along with changes in circulation and air temperatures can all lead to differences in how sea ice forms.

If you're trying to open up a discussion on climate change, that's respectable. However, in my opinion, there is an "earth is flat" group that just won't let go of man-made global warming, rather than accepting that the planet's climate has changed many times over, shows repeated cycles, and has explanations for those events that transcend humans. It will continue to change in ways that we have absolutely no control over, and to think we do, is arrogance on another level. We could all disappear tomorrow, and the planet will go on, and it's climate will still change for millions of years to come. The Maunder Minimum has shown that humans have no impact on climate as much as the sun does, and when the number of sunspots is high, temperatures tend to be higher, and when they are lower, temperatures tend to be lower too.

Then you have the summer of 1816, where:


The infamous year of 1816 was beset with powerful changes in magnetism, major volcanic eruptions, and the wobbling of the Sun's position. It is believed that the coincidence of those powerful forces of nature propelled our planet into the widespread famine, drought, and destructive snows and rains that so many historians documented. Only recently have scientists thought to make the link with those corellated climatic events and solar "wobble" and come up with the SIM theory.


The sun has more to do with our climate than anything else, and the scientific community at large has acknowledged that, which is why so much is being invested in studying it. The sun's wobble has an enormous impact on our climate, known as the Solar Inertial Motion, also called the barycenter shift. Professor Charvátová's findings were ignored by the IPCC, conveniently.

Real scientists are ignored when their results don't fit an agenda.

Almost all academic climate science is based on models, which are designed by humans with "best guess" science behind it.

~Namaste



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I'm convinced that the only way to even have a serious discussion about this whole thing would be to have a consortium of money sources that had no bias (if there is such a thing) to do some R&D to research evidence of anthropogenic interference in the climate. The science community is still divided and people always argue with the one that supports their case. I'd be open ears to some real science in the whole thing.

The biggest part, however, is any legislation or hostile commercial interference that moves money from the taxpayer into the politicians and large industry's hands. And that seems to be the direction it is going with threats of cap and trade carbon credits and monetary penalties for carbon release. Raising consumer rates and moving money to the government does nothing for the environment, moves power to the federal government, and is usually negated by other countries which aren't held to the same restrictions (India, China, Russia, etc.) if you look at it as an incentive to do away with carbon emitting fuels.

I'm all for keeping the world survivable, but I certainly don't want to give federal government more power. They're already past what they're allowed.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
First of all, ice cores from Lake Vostok, which are among the most reputable and undisputed, show consistently that warming occurs BEFORE CO2 increases.


It's not Lake Vostok, but nonetheless the point is correct: ice cores show that prehistorically temp rises lead to CO2 rises.

But how does this prove the CO2 rises cannot lead to temp rises?

It's a non sequiter.

Uness it can be shown that an icrease in CO2 cannnot cause a rise in temp, only the other way around? Something no-one has been able to do.


Second, the Milankovitch cycles need to be taken into consideration as well.


Indeed, Although we are not expected to enter a new ice age for many thousands of years, due to a decline in axial tilt, there has been a small decline in global temps and glacial advance over the past 4-5 thousand years (the neoglacial) with, as would be expected, this being most prominent in Arctic regions. Until now ..... The recent reversal is inexplicable, based on current knowledge, unless we take into account human activity.

Human activity however, does not just mean greenhouse gas emissions. Things like black soot and deforestation may be just as significant - and more readily dealt with. Except they are harder to tax ......


However, in my opinion, there is an "earth is flat" group that just won't let go of man-made global warming, rather than accepting that the planet's climate has changed many times over, shows repeated cycles, and has explanations for those events that transcend humans


Conversely, I believe that there is an "earth is flat" group that just won't let go of the idea that human activity cannot affect climate - just because, as they correctly point out - climate can also change without human activity. And also because they confuse governemt taxes with science.

Note: science says climate changes because of natural and human reasons. Remember that

edit on 4-7-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
ok so the last DECADE (10 years) have been warmer than any on record since we have been taking "modern measurements". [sarcasm]so i guess it's time to hit the PANIC button!!!!!
[/sarcasm]

so it is the warmest decade in ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS, that's 1 decade out of 16, (doesn't sound near as impressive that way does it?), that we have been keeping so called "modern measurement" records for. honestly what is that compared to the at least FIVE THOUSAND years minimum as believed by some people or the MILLIONS of years believed by other people that this planet has been around? do you honestly believe that that makes for a good statistical analysis of the way NATURAL WEATHER is? would you think say a poll was accurate if you asked only 160 people out of 5,000 or even millions of people about something as well? who is to say that 180 years ago or even 500 years ago was even warmer?
that is one of my biggest problems with this whole "HUMAN caused" global warming THEORY (NOT proven FACT by any means). we really do NOT have enough information available to make valid ASSUMPTIONS about what NATURAL weather patterns could be. after all we all learned about an ICE AGE that apparently happened where most of the earth was COLD and covered in ice, is it any more far fetched to think there could be a "heat age"?
is there a possibility that the ice age was proceeded by a "heat age"? and that just perhaps there is a few thousand year or even a million or two year weather cycle, possibly something to do with the sun?

all this fear mongering about global warming is doing NOTHING. as an example, in many place you can now only buy CF light bulbs. this is supposedly to reduce power consumption and thus help "save" the environment by reducing emissions by reducing power usage. yet are they better for he environment? NO. first lets look at the old "standard" bulb the ones we used for years. they are primarily made of glass with a bit of metal. they break no big deal, if we wanted to they would even be fairly easy to recycle as when they break you end up with glass and the metal bits tend to stay mostly together. in a landfill they don't add much in the way of poisons, the glass will stick around forever but the metal will break down. now for the CF bulbs. they are made of glass, possibly less metal, a big piece of PLASTIC (which is made from oil), and MERCURY. they too can apparently be recycled but i would suspect more effort (using i would suspect MORE ELECTRICITY). if they break they are technically hazardous to your health (the MERCURY). yet most will likely end up in landfills, break and possibly do thing like contaminate groundwater with the mercury (something we already have issues with in lakes and rivers that already needs to be dealt with). the metal will still break down, but added to the glass you now have that big piece of plastic as well as of course the mercury. they "might" be more efficient but i have always found i need to use a MORE POWERFUL bulb to get the same level of light as the old style no matter what the package says it is equivalent to. so they goes some of the energy savings there, and how much more "emissions" are caused manufacturing them over the old type? yet this is the type of thing they are pushing with the "man made global warming" SCAM. something that looks good but is likely even WORSE for the environment over all.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Well AndyMayhew was quicker than I was lol. I would like to add a few points though.

Shakun et al showed that 7% of the temperature rise occurred previous to Co2 rise and that 93% of the temperature rise occurred after the Co2 rise. The way I understand it is that the trigger for the initial temperature rise was orbital forcing and once the Co2 levels started to rise the temperature increases were amplified.

It's not new or disputed that temperature increases release greenhouse gasses from ice and permafrost... what we end up with is a positive feedback loop, the earth warms, the warmer temps lead to GHG release, the more GHG's released the warmer it gets which releases more GHG's etc etc. In Earth's past, though it was dramatic climate change from one spectrum to the other, it happened very slowly and corrected itself once again with orbital forcing that next would lead to cooling.

Now when you factor in humanity which is circumventing the natural extremely slow release, by pulling it out of the ground and burning it, it's adding up in the atmosphere much faster than it should and overwhelming the cycle that would ground some of it as more was released.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
First of all, ice cores from Lake Vostok, which are among the most reputable and undisputed, show consistently that warming occurs BEFORE CO2 increases.


It's not Lake Vostok, but nonetheless the point is correct: ice cores show that prehistorically temp rises lead to CO2 rises.


Check the source I linked, you are incorrect... it is Lake Vostok's ice cores that go back 400K years and show the temps leading CO2.


But how does this prove the CO2 rises cannot lead to temp rises?


How does it not? Every rise in CO2 and temperature in the past 400K years shows the opposite, and nobody has PROVEN that it is CO2?


It's a non sequiter.


It's non sequitur (spell check is our friend).... but I digress.


Uness it can be shown that an icrease in CO2 cannnot cause a rise in temp, only the other way around? Something no-one has been able to do.


Is that so? I guess NASA, who recently back-pedaled and directly contradicts the IPCC, is wrong ...


A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.


Now, don't shoot the messenger, go argue with the NASA folks and their SABER data.

It goes on to say:


NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.


Source


Until now ..... The recent reversal is inexplicable, based on current knowledge, unless we take into account human activity.


Really... so it can't possibly have anything to do with the sun? Nothing to do with what I just posted from NASA about its recent findings regarding OBSERVATIONS of the atmospheric CO2? Nothing to do with the sun's own wobble, which I also posted? Where are your sources?


Human activity however, does not just mean greenhouse gas emissions. Things like black soot and deforestation may be just as significant - and more readily dealt with. Except they are harder to tax ......


So is the sun difficult to tax too.
No disagreement there otherwise. Other contributors to warming that MAY be related to humans exist, but to think that we contribute to it more than natural processes is growing more and more ridiculous.


Conversely, I believe that there is an "earth is flat" group that just won't let go of the idea that human activity cannot affect climate - just because, as they correctly point out - climate can also change without human activity. And also because they confuse governemt taxes with science.


We don't have nearly the impact you think. It's very much the same as the days of Galilleo... you have people who "believe", blindly, and you have scientists that do the actual observations. I tend to side with observation.


Note: science says climate changes because of natural and human reasons. Remember that


Also remember... science changes constantly, there is nothing set in stone, and all science starts with a BELIEF, not a fact, and seeks to prove or disprove with experiments and results that can be reproduced. Models are not science, remember that.


~Namaste
edit on 4-7-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: typo



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


It's "back pedaled". Just sayin'



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Well AndyMayhew was quicker than I was lol. I would like to add a few points though.

Shakun et al showed that 7% of the temperature rise occurred previous to Co2 rise and that 93% of the temperature rise occurred after the Co2 rise. The way I understand it is that the trigger for the initial temperature rise was orbital forcing and once the Co2 levels started to rise the temperature increases were amplified.

It's not new or disputed that temperature increases release greenhouse gasses from ice and permafrost... what we end up with is a positive feedback loop, the earth warms, the warmer temps lead to GHG release, the more GHG's released the warmer it gets which releases more GHG's etc etc. In Earth's past, though it was dramatic climate change from one spectrum to the other, it happened very slowly and corrected itself once again with orbital forcing that next would lead to cooling.

Now when you factor in humanity which is circumventing the natural extremely slow release, by pulling it out of the ground and burning it, it's adding up in the atmosphere much faster than it should and overwhelming the cycle that would ground some of it as more was released.


Sorry, but your paper applies only to the last deglaciation period, for the Pleistocene period, not the last 400K years. It does not counter the 400K period, in fact, it supports it and the paper is specific to showing that when leaving the last ice age, that on that ONE period, the CO2 leads temperature very very closely. Prior to that, all other periods of warming show that temps lead GHG's. The summary is pretty clear:


The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature.


It's also a year old, which is the equivalent of a decade in climate science. Please see the NASA article from 3 months ago that I previously posted, it goes into much more detail.

~Namaste



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


That article was discussed in this thread. The fact that you can't recognize the knots twisted into the NASA report by deniers speaks volumes.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Whether Climate Change is real or not, manmade or not, one fact remains....


There is ONE ABSOLUTE FACT relating to this topic.....our actions DO effect the environment. There are countless forests, jungles, and animals that have been and will be destroyed directly due to our actions.

We CAN and MUST do much more to protect our environment, regardless of whether climate change is real or not.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
We know that the pro AGW scientists are cooking the books using Heat Island Effect.

We know that many claims they make are in remote areas where the general public never goes.

The other planets warming is ignored and the pro AGW scientists will never even try to explain it
Its like they believe if they don't talk about it it never happened

I study Paleoclimatology of the last 25 million years and i only see normal climite change that has been going on since the beginning of the planet.

The pro AGW scientist only go back 3 million so they can cook the books because 3 million years ago was the middle of a ice age. Yes from 3 million years ago there has been major global warming.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


That article was discussed in this thread. The fact that you can't recognize the knots twisted into the NASA report by deniers speaks volumes.


The fact that you call dissenting views "deniers" shows how you prefer to label others rather than respect the debate. Nice strawman Kali, love how you completely avoided both of my rebuttals and not a word said about the SIM theory or barycentric influence of the sun. Just because something has been discussed here on ATS does not qualify it as factual either.

It's obvious where you stand in the debate. As soon as you called other perspectives by a slanderous term, you lost the discussion and abandoned the debate for your biased view.


~Namaste



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by greyer
 


Argh !
you can't measure a few hundred years data and say with 100% certainty that the climate is warming up.
Climate changes happen in the tens of thousands of years.

But whatever. Personally I would rather have people focusing on pollution control than the climate change boogey man.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join