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: Cinrad
Im not saying we should just burn all the coal and oil on the planet, but I would like to say to global warming (climate change) proponents "you don't know everything and not everybody who disagrees with you is and idiot or a criminal"
originally posted by: chuck258
originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
a reply to: Cinrad
You seem a little off on this....
The article says...
The near two-decade long "pause" in rising average global surface temperatures was a "distraction" that did not change long term model predictions of a much hotter world this century
www.pressreader.com...
I think the fact that their model did not predict this pause speaks volumes about their 'research'. It says two things: Either what many folks have said is true, that is: Global Warming is a political scandal,
or their are faults in their research.
Both say that global warming is not as bad as the global warming doom porn advocates would have.
originally posted by: anno141
Any fact-based takes on this?
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...
I'm not qualified to evaluate and too confused to know what's what anymore on the subject.
originally posted by: here4this
a reply to: Greven
See , thats what is driving this whole thing. Evidence can be posted for , and then someone will deny it and post something else.I go deeper on this subject than numbers or what someone "says". Numbers can be altered , people lie to get what they want. I want to know how "carbon tax credits" going to a company backed by politicians and ex-politicians (you know who I am talking about) is going to save the world ? Even our current President is a mega stock holder.Billions in cash to them ? From the lower and middle class families of the world . Now , who stands to gain all these billions? It isnt the GW Deniers' club. Does anyone stop and think about that ? If you had invested millions in an "investment" and stood to gain billions worldwide from it , would you continue to press the idea no matter what ? Yes. Didn't Al Gore state that the Ice Caps would be melted by last year ? The GW crowd is getting desperate as the data fails them. All they see is all that money going away.And as far as that goes , if I though for an instant (and I dont) they would actually utilize that money to improve the world in some way I would not be against it . But they wont . Not one penny. This is just their greed showing its face in one more way . The old saying goes (and it is an absolute must in this case) "Follow the money"
"Nuff Said"
originally posted by: Cinrad
This is the frankest admission yet that the Earth has not been warming for the last 2 decades, and they don't know why not.
Article
After rejecting its existence for years, climate scientists have in recent years proposed a wide range of factors to explain it,
The paper also suggests that decadal climate oscillations were not pushing heat into the deep oceans, another explanation for the “missing heat”
Im not saying we should just burn all the coal and oil on the planet, but I would like to say to global warming (climate change) proponents "you don't know everything and not everybody who disagrees with you is and idiot or a criminal"
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman
You understand that the quote you used was labeled a climate myth on the site you linked it from? Go back and look at it again.
And what "myth" would that be in your opinon? I am open to honest review.
this key quote caught my attention
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.