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.

 

95 per cent of intelligent people know the new IPCC report is utter drivel

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Is there a similar analysis of the data from the 70's until now? I usually dislike a study on 10 years of 50 years of data as it allows for cherrypicking.

Again, my contention all along has never been the sun is responsible, only that I think there is data that is too readily dismissed. I personally don't have a horse in this race, if there is a rebuttal to the data (especially for the full 40-50 years of data) I would love to read it. Unfortunately the one you posted appears to be subscription based so I can not read it.

Also do you know Phage if the ones analyzing the data account for the fact that equal amounts of solar activity will continue to have a greater impact due to the ice melting and no longer being a reflecting agent, rather the water becomes an absorbtive agent?

Both sides seem to be so invested in being right I can't help but feel the science is suffering.
edit on 28-9-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

There is more data.

spot.colorado.edu...

Here is the full article.
www.mps.mpg.de...



Also do you know Phage if the ones analyzing the data account for the fact that equal amounts of solar activity will continue to have a greater impact due to the ice melting and no longer being a reflecting agent, rather the water becomes an absorbtive agent?
The analyses we are talking about only concern TSI. But they don't show changes which would appear to be significant unless extended over the long term.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Is there any study done on the amount of radiance being absorbed by Earth, as there are many factors that can influence this. I know New England has been having less snow, and greater changes in temperature are seen in the winter time. I am curious if this is attributable to the fact that snow/ice reflects radiation, and with less snow the same amount of radiance will now have a greater impact.

Just for anyone reading I think to claim mankind has had zero impact is also pretty foolish.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




Is there any study done on the amount of radiance being absorbed by Earth, as there are many factors that can influence this.

Yes. Many factors. That's the problem. It's being worked on.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ipcc.ch...



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It's a shame it's taken them so long. I can't blame them for not thinking about it beforehand though I suppose. Much like the lubrication factor that is moving glaciers faster than expected it's hard to predict these things.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

It's more a matter of technology and how to use it I think.
The utility of such information is pretty obvious.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

It's more a matter of technology and how to use it I think.
The utility of such information is pretty obvious.

I disagree there. When the polar ice melts the light that was being reflected is now being absorbed. This was never factored into the original equation.

When glaciers melt they create lakes that break through the ice and flow along the bottom of the glacier speeding up their flow. This was never known, so never factored in either.

Hindsight is 20-20, which is why I don't really fault them for it, but until somewhat recently the utility of the information was not obvious, although now it has become so.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Man made Global warming is utter BS. There is legitimate doubt that even the atmosphere has warmed over the past 500 years. The atmosphere comprises less than a millionth of the mass of the Earth. And we are arguing about a measureable potential increase in this millionth?
edit on 28-9-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I disagree there. When the polar ice melts the light that was being reflected is now being absorbed. This was never factored into the original equation.
Which "original equation" would that be? There are quite a few models out there but as far as the effects of ice on albedo not being considered...that doesn't seem to be exactly accurate.
adsabs.harvard.edu...
adsabs.harvard.edu...
link.springer.com...

scholar.google.com...



But I was referring to the ability to collect actual data. If the radiative effects of ice (and other things) can be quantified, the models can be further refined.


edit on 9/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well, most of what I have read on the subject says the albedo effect was greatly miscalculated, and it is a much more powerful force than originally believed.

I believe the water running under glaciers lubricating their movement is a recent find.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join