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.
Clearly obvious? I can't imagine a scientist faced with the dissent, questionable data (see hockey stick, etc.), and models which don't accurately predict, would ever say it's clearly obvious.
This week’s IPCC report will underestimate the future threat of climate change because scientific models do not include certain key variables, according to a leading expert.
Important factors like the melting of frozen Arctic soil, which are expected to contribute significantly to global warming, have been left out of scientists’ calculations because the size of their impact remains unclear.
It means that models which will be used to inform the latest international assessment of climate science, to be revealed on Friday, “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem, Lord Stern of Brentford claimed.
The former World Bank chief economist, who authored an influential 2007 report on the economics of climate change, said scientists were correct to exclude factors which are not fully understood from their models, but added that it is important to bear in mind that plenty of “deeply worrying” evidence has been left out.
I wonder if this could have anything to do with shipping across the Atlantic, how much heat did those ships produce ...
A mysterious, centuries-long cool spell, dubbed the Little Ice Age, appears to have been caused by a series of volcanic eruptions and sustained by sea ice, a new study indicates.
I wonder if this could have anything to do with shipping across the Atlantic
Over the last century, most of the more prominent drops in global temperature coincide with large, tropical volcanic eruptions (the solid lines in Figure 1). However, there are no such eruptions in 1945 (the dashed line). In fact, the drop in 1945 doesn't appear to be related to any known physical phenomenon. Another clue is the fact that the discontinuity is apparent in sea surface temperatures (SST) but not in land temperatures... (see link for graphs)
What caused such a dramatic drop in SST in 1945? In the wartime years leading up to 1945, most sea temperatures measurements were taken by US ships, who measured the temperature of the intake water used for cooling the ship's engines. This method tends to yield higher temperatures due to the warm engine-room environment. However, in August 1945, British ships resumed taking SST measurements. British crews collected water in uninsulated buckets. The bucket method has a cooling bias.
Not much to do with shipping or pollution per se; but the 'dip' in temperatures in the late 40's and 50's can be attributed to a change in the way the ocean temperature was sampled.
A recent report from the National Research Council (NRC) “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate” finds small variations in solar output can have “major influence” on climate, particularly at the regional scale.
The average rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet has very likely substantially
increased from 34 [–6 to 74] Gt yr–1 over the period 1992–2001 to 215 [157 to 274] Gt yr–1
over the period 2002–2011. [4.4]
• The average rate of ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet has likely increased from 30 [–37 to
97] Gt yr–1 over the period 1992–2001 to 147 [72 to 221] Gt yr–1 over the period 2002–2011.
There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic
Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica. [4.4]
I don't see every anomaly tied to CO2, and being that global warming has been going on for a century now, with a thirty year pause, I don't think the term anomaly fits.
There is still a great deal that is not known about global warming, and anthropomorphic warming has not been completely proven as the cause, but that is where all the evidence is point. That being said, there is no reason to look for other explanations, contributions, as well.
Real scientists without an agenda are looking at global warming...
I think that if things continue the way they are, in 5 to 10 years, Global Warming will dwarf all other issues.