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.
Well one logical explanation is that the Artic has a larger percentage of ICE exposed to the sea where as the Antartic is a continent with larger amounts of Ice on land, so it is only exposed to one temperature variant more so than the Arctic , this one variant being the atmosphere, where as the Artic gets both the Atmospheric increase as well as more Oceanic, and now Volcanic as you rightly highlight, as causes.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occuring gas, it is released as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. This is being equally distributed throughout the atmosphere, and it is being observed and measured. World Data for Greenhouse Gases. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is labelled so because it aids in heating the atmosphere....it is not pollution, air born pollutants, or aerosols, would be the particulate matter that we observe as smog in urban enviroments that are also a result of burning fossil fuels or as industrial processes etc. For further reading i suggest you look at this article on Aerosol pollutants.
Well how does the volcano theory explain this.
Your link showing anomalous sea temperatures is great. But Unfortunately we would have to also observe anomalous temperature whenever vents are active to see if these vents create these anomalous temperatures everywhere else in the ocean. I am currently looking for more stuff on vents.
P.S. On a side not, you might notice in the above highlited quote that the scientists admit that volcanoes contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. Volcanic CO2 is 1% of the volume emitted by Humans, 1%.
No I did not skip over it. The sedimentary cores along with the Ice cores show a 1500 cycle. I and other believe that this is not the cause of the current warming. You do believe it is the cause, i never said that it did not exist. In an earlier post, this is what you said about the Ice core Data
You are conveniently skipping over the SEDIMENTRY CORES taken from all the oceans that fully support the ice-core data.
I pointed out that as a record it is disappearing, suggesting that this puts it outside the cycle, as the record of the cycle itself is melting away. Why would i need to refute the fact that it is a record, a record you yourself admit seems to be experiencing effects that will melt the very evidence of it being a cycle.
Originally posted by KrytiesWhile you may have a point about the ice samples, the seabed sedimentary samples cannot be refuted.
I have found no scientific material agreeing with Avery and Singers Think tank piece. Read my statement. I agree that i could have phrased it better, but i specifically mention your think tank piece. If you would like to link other sources relating to the claims of the think tank from scientist reviewing the claims, then please do so.
promoted by a think tank suggesting a 1500 cycle no one else in the scientific community agrees with.
1. You seriously cannot be arrogant enough to believe you speak for the entire scientific community can you?
2. The 1500 year was known about well before the think tank suggested it.
Feast your eyes on these two examples (there are many more but I am trying to save space...
Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores
ScienceDaily (Nov. 14, 1997) — Earth's climate cools significantly and abruptly every 1,500 years or so in a persistent, regular rhythm, a team led by scientists at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory reports in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Science.
You have offered nothing but think tank pieces to support you claim that the current observed GW is part of a natural Cycle.. The article that you do present that is from Science Daily, argues against you view, and agrees with me. Perhaps my ad-hoc term "Shoot-down" posts should not be confused with how science works as I shot down a Think Tank piece, a petition whose premise has nothing to do with GW claims and Core Sample that other scientists believe do not point to Warming, but Cooling. The fact that you are again attacking me via semantics and behaviour only shows you cannot address the questions I have continuously asked you.
3. I do not set out to 'shoot down' peoples posts. That is NOT the way science is conducted.
Please refute the empirical evidence supporting Anthropogenic Warming. Please Point out in your "cycles" where we observe Human Activity that matches current trends so as to dismiss these current trends as typical to past cycles. Your sources and mountains of Info are Junk and you know it. Otherwise you would have shot my posts down earlier, you haven't.
I'm not going to play your 'let's crucify people' game. The evidence I have presented speaks for itself and also, by it's very nature, refutes your argument.
LOL, please, you have pointed out nothing, all you do is complain. More baseless claims from you. Vindictive or Bullying? How about you review the evidence i have asked you to look at, and show me where it is wrong, like i have with yours(which this post is more evidence off).
No you have not. You have even astounded me by some of your responses, as if you do not even understand what you are reading. I have not pointed this out until now though because I am neither vindictive nor bullyish.
The only game i have played is one where i present my sources that support my argument, while reviewing that which is presented by others. An example of this can be found throughout the thread. Look at my replies to Yourself and Member Redneck posts. You have not done this. Once again, Please show where the sources i have used are wrong. Please show me where in the Cycle that you are claiming is responsible for GW, do we witness the Current activities and Influences of MAN within that cycle, and so dismissing that Human activity as insignificant as it is in the Cycle records. You have not answered any of these. You will not debate any of these. Instead you accuse me of "crucifying the opposition". Please, answer the questions? Its really that simple.
Once again this is not a 'crucify the opposition' game like you so badly seem to want it to be. I am done with this. I am off to find a thread where we can debate science in a respectful, non-crucification manner.
Yes, well, i posted the vast majority of these posts in the wee hours of the morning and maybe i could have used Text Edit. You can crucify my grammatical skills all you want, in fact, it now appears that is all you can attack in the posts, as you continue to Ignore all the requests to answer and review my sources. This is petty in the extreme, and quite frankly typical of those without any solid arguments.
PS: I find it extremely hard to take seriously any science claimed by somebody who hasn't learnt to spell nor form correct paragraphs. Learn these first before moving onto the bigger things. I know that may come across as a personal attack but it's my honest feelings. I'm done with this thread now.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Originally posted by Kryties
I pointed out that as a record it is disappearing, suggesting that this puts it outside the cycle, as the record of the cycle itself is melting away. Why would i need to refute the fact that it is a record, a record you yourself admit seems to be experiencing effects that will melt the very evidence of it being a cycle.
Singer and Avery stated in their Think Tank piece that in the first Greenland Cores taken in 1983 this cycle became evident, they find these same cycles in Antarctica too. Now, if it is a record of cores taken from two continental Ice Glaciers, these glaciers have to have been maintained over the entire period of the history of these cycle, and so recording them. This suggest that the Ices presence is an indicator of the parameters of the cycle, that the Ice in these locations remains. One Question. Why are these Glaciers melting if this is a natural cycle. Surely that would be preserved as per the natural cycle and so record another phase of the cycle.
I have found no scientific material agreeing with Avery and Singers Think tank piece. Read my statement. I agree that i could have phrased it better, but i specifically mention your think tank piece.
I attacked Avery and Singers claims that the cycle was causing GW, and that the scientific community does not agree, you then post another source that was supposed to refute my claims, but in facts supports it. Thanks. Here it is for you, your source, arguing against you.
Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores
ScienceDaily (Nov. 14, 1997) — Earth's climate cools significantly and abruptly every 1,500 years or so in a persistent, regular rhythm, a team led by scientists at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory reports in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Science.
The earth cools in this examination of the Cores. Not warms as per Avery and Singers think tank piece. I know you may be more focused on a comment regarding the scientific community, but your own evidence supports my original comment that this community does not support your think tank piece.
The fact that you are again attacking me via semantics and behaviour only shows you cannot address the questions I have continuously asked you.
Please refute the empirical evidence supporting Anthropogenic Warming.
This is because you cannot do the above. Earlier you stated that this was a debate. I have repeatedly debated the evidence you supply, you have still not done this for mine.
Where have i crucified anyone. Your melodramatics are amusing.
LOL, please, you have pointed out nothing, all you do is complain.
The only game i have played is one where i present my sources that support my argument, while reviewing that which is presented by others. An example of this can be found throughout the thread. Look at my replies to Yourself and Member Redneck posts. You have not done this.
reply to post by atlasastro
Yes, well, i posted the vast majority of these posts in the wee hours of the morning and maybe i could have used Text Edit. You can crucify my grammatical skills all you want, in fact, it now appears that is all you can attack in the posts, as you continue to Ignore all the requests to answer and review my sources. This is petty in the extreme, and quite frankly typical of those without any solid arguments.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by atlasastro
You get a pass tonight. It's late, I have had a hard day in traffic, and I'm a little fuzzy in the head. But I did want to reply ASAP, so feel free to point out any errors.
In other words, warmer water will tend to raise the temperature of air readily, while it is much harder for warm air to affect water temperature. This is easily demonstrated by an old country practice of using a container of water atop a heater to help heat a home. The warm water, which becomes water vapor as it evaporates, will keep the air warmer longer than a home with dry air, due to the amount of energy contained in the water vapor. This is also why desert locations can become so hot during the day and yet be very cold at night; the dry air cannot store energy as well as moist (water vapor filled) air.
Yes but the oceans still absorb and store heats, and surface temperatures have risen, indicating that there is a transfer of heat from the Atmosphere to the Ocean. I agree though that this is hard to swallow as the only cause of oceanic water temperature rises. But to suggest that it is not a contributing factor is also hard to swallow.
CO2 absorption occurs in the atmosphere, not in the oceans. CO2 in the oceans is extremely minimal, due to the interaction of CO2 with hydroxide (OH-) to form a weak carbonic acid solution (HCO3-). Also, UV radiation, which is the energy absorbed by CO2, is not prevalent in the water, since water tends to block it.
As the earth warms, from either natural or human causes, or both, not all the extra heat goes immediately into the atmosphere, where its effect on climate is most direct.
Much of it is absorbed by the oceans, which store it for years or decades before releasing it.
This means that to whatever extent the planet is being warmed by emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, only part of that heating has materialized so far at and above the earth's surface.
Some experts believe that about half the greenhouse warming is still in the oceanic pipeline and will inevitably percolate to the air in the decades just ahead.
Well how does the volcano theory explain this.
But this arguement is the same for the amount of enegy needed from volcanic events creating the same rapid changes. The Ridges you from your earlier post are not this active, and only became significant for the way they exploded, not the amount of activity. The more i read into this though, the more i am inclined to accept it as a contributing factor.
Your own source, www.charlotteobserver.com... , coupled with the specific heat subject above, would seem to dismiss atmospheric warming and implicate oceanic warming as well:
“The Markham Ice Shelf was a big surprise because it suddenly disappeared. We went under...... the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic,” said Mueller.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
As stated above, it would take a huge atmospheric temperature anomaly to impart enough energy into the ice to melt it that rapidly. An increase in water temperature, however, could easily do so, based on the amount of energy water can absorb/release.
Yes I see that correlation to, but only in relation to the Ocean and the Local regions that are effected by this seismic activity. To say that it is responsible for GW is a big leap, considering how incomplete the current knowledge is on these activities. I am thankfull for your input, as this need more serious investigation.
Still, I see a remarkable correlation between the known seismically active areas and the temperature anomalies.
The sediment backs up the Ice. I agree with you. I did not say the sedimentary cores would melt. I said the Ice is melting. If the Ice is melting(the record), then the Melting shows that it is outside the recorded cycle. So the Sediment, while valid in backing up the Ice Core samples does not refute that the melting is outside and abnormal for the cycle recorded in both the sediment and the Ice(which is disappearing). Pretty simple. The sediment is only a record of the Cycle. The melting's now, of the area where Ice core records where taken from is proof that this phenomena is outside of these cycle.
Please explain to me how sedimentary cores are supposed to 'melt' considering they are made of clay, mud, sediment, rock and minerals?
Once we've gotten past this very basic Science 101 question then you may begin to see that my evidence is valid.
Read the above.
SEDIMENTARY CORES ARE NOT MADE OF ICE THEREFORE DO NOT MELT AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CLAIMS IN YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT. Is that clear enough for you???????
Dude, read the article, there is no sign of rapid rising of temperature, this is what we are calling GW. There is only evidence in the Cores of Rapid Cooling. It is logical to deduct from this, that that is how the Cores have remained as a historical record!!!! Over the history of the record it never got warm enough to melt these Glaciers. A record that is now melting due to rapid Warming. You need to stop spinning the science to fit your agenda. Read what it says.
DUDE!!! You need to recheck what you are saying there. The very fact that it cools every 1500 years also means there must be a warming period for it to cool again. Hence, a 1500 year cycle of warming and cooling. How is that so hard to understand?????
Umm, only to you. A think tank piece and a opinion piece on the IPCC is not evidence. A fraudulent Petition is not evidence.The evidence I have presented speaks for itself and also, by it's very nature, refutes your argument.
You have insulted other people in this thread. You have stated your intention to 'shoot down' other peoples posts. That, in itself, speaks of a bias on your part.
No it does not. You accept it as such without addressing any of the issues i have raised concerning the "evidence" you present, while ignoring my evidence and questions.
Once again, in nice big letters...
The evidence I have presented speaks for itself and also, by it's very nature, refutes your argument.
Yes you are getting ridiculous. Really. As most of the Stuff i have posted has come from peer reviewed and published papers. Please point out the bits that need to be laughed at, as I have repeatedly asked you to do. Singer(from you previous post) on the other hand Retired and then published his piece on the Cycle Theory for GW, as he knew professionally it would damage his credibility as the general consensus within the Scientific community is the the GW we are experiencing is from MAN.
This is getting ridiculous. If this were a scientific forum or conference of some description, you would have been laughed off the stage by now.
Your lack of understanding of basic Year 7 science is astounding.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Geez, i wonder how i got into Sydney University.
Your post is absurd. This is all you have isn't it. Petty swipes and ridiculous hypothetical senarios. Look at the post where i found that you had infact made up two words. Bullyish and Non-crucification. In this post where these words appeared you attacked me for poor spelling and grammer.
Originally posted by Kryties
1. I live in Sydney, Australia too. I was replying at the same hours of the morning as you were and yet I have managed to present my claims in a grammatically and punctually correct fashion.
2. This excuse would not cut it if you were attempting to present your evidence to a forum of scientists. They would laugh you off the stage.
[edit on 6/9/2008 by Kryties]
Originally posted by atlasastro
Your post is absurd. This is all you have isn't it. Petty swipes and ridiculous hypothetical senarios. Look at the post where i found that you had infact made up two words. Bullyish and Non-crucification. In this post where these words appeared you attacked me for poor spelling and grammer.
I am going out tonight. I'll leave you to conjur up some more snide attacks and fantastical settings where i may be laughed at. Please.
Originally posted by Kryties
Originally posted by atlasastro
Your post is absurd. This is all you have isn't it. Petty swipes and ridiculous hypothetical senarios. Look at the post where i found that you had infact made up two words. Bullyish and Non-crucification. In this post where these words appeared you attacked me for poor spelling and grammer.
I am going out tonight. I'll leave you to conjur up some more snide attacks and fantastical settings where i may be laughed at. Please.
Classic baiting technique, I will no longer play your game.
Once again for the dummies:
It's obvious that you are looking at what I have said and interpreting it in your own way. I have tried to explain the simplicity of it but you simply cannot grasp it. Therefore my input into this thread has come to an impasse and therefore I will take my leave.
Cheerio.
British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.
When they say he treated interviewees unfairly, it means he misrepresented what some of the scientist said.
An OfCom enquiry in July 2008 found that this programme "did not fulfill obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues" and "it treated interviewees unfairly"
Further controversy followed the broadcast of the film after it emerged that Martin Durkin had fallen out with geneticist Armand Leroi (whom Durkin was due to make a documentary with), after Leroi questioned the accuracy of the data used in the film in an email to Durkin.
SOURCE
Professor Carl Wunsch who appeared on the programme has since repudiated the film and compared it to propaganda[10].Durkin responded that Wunsch had been told very explicitly the nature of the programme and now appeared to be back-tracking.
Wow look at that what a coincidence, Fred Singer appearing in this documentary. This is the Same Fred Singer that ATS memberKryties has used in his arguments. I have linked further reading regarding this man on these previous posts.
Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However,
286 scientist complained about the Info in this documentary in the UK alone.
In July 2008, the British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers."
Against Nature was a UK television documentary broadcast in 1997 by Channel 4. The film lambasted environmentalism and sustainable development while eulogising genetic modification and denying global warming.
The documentary was produced by associates of the LM group, who presented ideologues like Frank Furedi as independent experts. Channel 4 was forced to issue an apology for the three-hour series.
Where Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change
Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before
Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on
here is a link to measurements on this.
Claim: Temperatures in the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, have not risen as predicted by the models
Fact: This was once the case, but it has been resolved now that initial measurement errors have been corrected
At least the scientists here admit that they make mistakes. Its a shame that Durkin is not doing the same in clarifying the Mistakes he has made after presenting them as facts.Source
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
Claim: Temperatures rose for the first part of the century, then cooled for three decades before warming again. There is no link to carbon dioxide
Fact: Temperatures did follow this pattern, but again there is a good explanation. The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols – particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain Source
The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
www.sciencemag.org...
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities
not one paper in disagreement. I hope you check into this one. Please do. here is the link again. www.sciencemag.org...
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision,That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
What is obvious is you cannot answer any of my questions.
Originally posted by Kryties
Classic baiting technique, I will no longer play your game.
Once again for the dummies:
It's obvious that you are looking at what I have said and interpreting it in your own way. I have tried to explain the simplicity of it but you simply cannot grasp it. Therefore my input into this thread has come to an impasse and therefore I will take my leave.
Cheerio.
originally posted by atlasastro
I will end this Now. I have looked at your sources. I do not accept these as Valid explanations of GW. I have expressed why in my posts. I base this belief upon the sources i have supplied(which are but a few amongst the many i have encountered while looking at this topic).
Now, you accept that these pieces of evidence speak for themselves. Cool. Great. Good for you. Wow.
Can you please now express why the evidence for anthropogenic global warming that I have linked in earlier posts is wrong. Can you please explain why my sources are questionable in the same way i have with Singer, Avery, Tom Harris and The Petition Authors.
And for one last time. Can you please explain where in the Ice Core Data(and the Sediment Cores) do we observe the current activity of Man, so as to remove this activity as a cause for GW.
You comment is bordering on stupidity.Of course it is in my own way. And i provide sources that support my beliefs. The fact is that I have run a sceptical eye over what you have presented, and have not looked at it your way.
It's obvious that you are looking at what I have said and interpreting it in your own way.
I have tried to explain the simplicity of it but you simply cannot grasp it. Therefore my input into this thread has come to an impasse and therefore I will take my leave.
Cheerio.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Originally posted by Outlawstar
I know, its like he just cant see what your saying in plain frikin English, and no doubt he`ll come along and slam me saying this
Well listen atlas, dont reply to me until youve WATCHED THE FRIKIN VIDEO I POSTED THAT PROVES GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT MAN MADE DAMMIT
YOU ASKED FOR ME TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS AND I HAVE BUT NO REPLY FROM YOU, TRUTH HARD TO SWALLOW?
LOLROMA.....oh boy.
Lets see you do the same to my evidence. It won't happen.
Put up or Shut up.
Truth Hard to Swallow. No. It never is. Just your BS.
I will state now. Do not post anything else but a reply to the evidence I have offered you. If you cannot do this then stay off the thread.
Swallow that.
Originally posted by Outlawstar
Just incase you DID`NT see the link here it is again.
YOUR THEORY BUSTED. CLICK HERE